Self-assembly of charged colloidal cubes.

In this work, we show how and why the interactions between charged cubic colloids range from radially isotropic to strongly directionally anisotropic, depending on tuneable factors. Using molecular dynamics simulations, we illustrate the effects of typical solvents to complement experimental investigations of cube assembly. We find that in low-salinity water solutions, where cube self-assembly is observed, the colloidal shape anisotropy leads to the strongest attraction along the corner-to-corner line, followed by edge-to-edge, with a face-to-face configuration of the cubes only becoming energetically favorable after the colloids have collapsed into the van der Waals attraction minimum. Analysing the potential of mean force between colloids with varied cubicity, we identify the origin of the asymmetric microstructures seen in experiment.

Development of a research agenda for general practice based on knowledge gaps identified in Dutch guidelines and input from 48 stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Several funding organizations using different agendas support research in general practice. Topic selection and prioritization are often not coordinated, which may lead to duplication and research waste. OBJECTIVES: To develop systematically a national research agenda for general practice involving general practitioners, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders in healthcare. METHODS: We reviewed knowledge gaps from 90 Dutch general practice guidelines and formulated research questions based on these gaps. In addition, we asked 96 healthcare stakeholders to add research questions relevant for general practice. All research questions were prioritized by practising general practitioners in an online survey (n = 232) and by participants of an invitational conference including general practitioners (n = 48) and representatives of other stakeholders in healthcare (n = 16), e.g. patient organizations and medical specialists. RESULTS: We identified 787 research questions. These were categorized in two ways: according to the chapters of the International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) and in 12 themes such as common conditions, person-centred care and patient education, collaboration and organization of care. The prioritizing procedure resulted in top 10 lists of research questions for each ICPC chapter and each theme. CONCLUSION: The process resulted in a widely supported National Research Agenda for General Practice. We encourage both researchers and funding organizations to use this agenda to focus their research on the most relevant issues in general practice and to generate new evidence for the next generation of guidelines and the future of general practice.

Prophylactic treatment of migraine by GPs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the considerable impact of migraine, the use of preventive medication in primary care is limited. Only about 5% of migraine patients who qualify for prophylaxis actually receive it, and adherence is far from optimal. AIM: To explore the opinions of GPs regarding preventive medication for migraine. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative focus group study in Dutch general practice. METHOD: Four focus groups (six GPs each) were formed. GPs were purposively sampled to acquire a range of participants, reflecting the more general GP population. RESULTS: GPs perceived patients' concerns about the impact of migraine and the potential benefits of prophylaxis. However, some were hesitant to start prescribing prophylaxis due to doubts about effectiveness, potential side effects, and the risk of developing drug dependency. GPs' decisions were often based on considerations other than those presented in national guidelines, for example, the patient's need to control their own problem. Many GPs placed responsibility for initiating prophylaxis with the patient. CONCLUSION: Various considerations hamper GPs from managing migraine with preventive medication, and various patient-related concerns cause GPs to deviate from national headache guidelines.

Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study in general practice in the Netherlands with twenty patients recruited from urban and rural general practices. Three focus group meetings were held with 6-7 migraine patients per group (2 female and 1 male group). All participants were migraine patients according to the IHS (International Headache Society); 9 had experience with prophylactic medication. The focus group meetings were analysed using a general thematic analysis. RESULTS: For patients several distinguished factors count when making a decision on prophylactic treatment. The decision of a patient on prophylactic medication is depending on experience and perspectives, grouped into five categories, namely the context of being active or passive in taking the initiative to start prophylaxis; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of prophylaxis; satisfaction with current migraine treatment; the relationship with the physician and the feeling to be heard; and previous steps taken to prevent migraine. CONCLUSION: In addition to the functional impact of migraine, the decision to start prophylaxis is based on a complex of considerations from the patient's perspective (e.g. perceived burden of migraine, expected benefits or disadvantages, interaction with relatives, colleagues and physician). Therefore, when advising migraine patients about prophylaxis, their opinions should be taken into account. Patients need to be open to advice and information and intervention have to be offered at an appropriate moment in the course of migraine.

A proactive approach to migraine in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients' scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions' cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ≤ 20) this change was -1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.).

[Preventive treatment for migraine]. / Preventieve behandeling van migraine.

Migraine patients who experience an average of 2 or more attacks per month are eligible for preventive treatment as well as treatment for acute attacks. The decision to offer preventative treatment is also made on the basis of the average attack duration, severity of the attacks, and response to attack treatment. Prior to initiating preventive treatment, the average attack frequency per month should be assessed, preferably by means of a headache diary over a number of months, as attack frequency is extremely variable. None of the currently available preventive drugs, such as beta-blockers, sodium valproate, topiramate and candesartan, were developed specifically for treating migraine, but were all originally intended for other indications. 50% of the migraine patients receiving preventive treatment can expect a 50% reduction in attacks, and the remaining attacks often seem to be less severe. The effects of the drugs are often unpredictable per individual, and side-effects frequently lead to early discontinuation of treatment. Drugs usually prescribed for cardiovascular disorders are often used. In the case of a disorder such as migraine with a high burden of disability, patients with cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidity should receive medication that is optimally adjusted for both indications.

Acceptance or rejection of prophylactic medicine in patients with migraine: a cross-sectional study.

Most patients with two or more migraine attacks per month do not use prophylactic medication. The aim of this study is to investigate how many patients use prophylaxis or would like to use them, and which aspects of migraine contribute to the choice to use prophylactic treatment. In a cross-sectional survey in three general practices, patients were selected who were diagnosed with migraine or had prescriptions for migraine medication. A questionnaire was sent to 283 patients and completed by 166 patients, of whom 15 were excluded. A total of 129 females and 22 males were included (median age 41 years). Most patients had two or more attacks per month (66.2%). Fifty-five per cent of patients with two or more attacks per month wanted to use prophylaxis; only 8% actually used this treatment. To get more insight into the ideas for or against prophylactic use, qualitative research is indicated.