The Web-Based Advance Care Planning Program "Explore Your Preferences for Treatment and Care": Development, Pilot Study, and Before-and-After Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Web-based advance care planning (ACP) programs may support patients in thinking about and discussing their preferences for future treatment and care. However, they are not widely available, and only a limited number of programs are evidence based. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and evaluate an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program that guides users through the process of thinking about, discussing, and recording of preferences for treatment and care. METHODS: The program "Explore your preferences for treatment and care" was developed, pilot-tested on feasibility, and subsequently evaluated; engagement in ACP was assessed before program completion and 2 months after program completion using the ACP Engagement Survey (score 1-5) among 147 persons with chronic disease. Usability (score 0-100) and user satisfaction (score 1-5) were also assessed. RESULTS: ACP engagement increased from 2.8 before program completion to 3.0 two months after program completion (P<.001); contemplation about ACP increased from 2.6 to 2.8 (P=.003), and readiness for ACP increased from 2.2 to 2.5 (P<.001). No changes were found for knowledge about ACP (3.0-3.2; P=.07) and self-efficacy for ACP (3.8-3.8; P=.25). The program was perceived as usable (mean 70, SD 13), attractive (mean 3.8, SD 0.7), and comprehensible (mean 4.2, SD 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: We developed an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program in cocreation with patients, relatives, and health care professionals. Before-and-after evaluation showed that the program can support people in taking first steps in ACP and in reflecting on preferences for treatment and care, by guiding them through the process of ACP using a stepwise approach. Participants perceived the program as usable and understandable, and they were satisfied with the program and with the amount of information. Health care professionals may use the program as a tool to start ACP discussions with their patients. The program may increase awareness of ACP.

Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients.

Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the government, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improvement on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven't yet fully reached the patients' needs, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy. To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy.

Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-directed knowledge tools such as patient versions of guidelines and patient decision aids are increasingly developed to facilitate shared decision making. In this paper, we report how consensus was reached within the Netherlands on quality criteria for development, content and governance of these tools. METHOD: A 12-month development and consensus study. The consortium worked on four work packages: (a) reviewing existing criteria; (b) drafting the quality criteria; (c) safe-guarding the acceptability and feasibility of the draft criteria by participatory research in on-going tool development projects; and (d) gaining formal support from national stakeholders on the quality criteria. RESULTS: We reached consensus on a 8-step guidance; describing minimal quality criteria for (a) the team composition; (b) setting the scope; (c) identifying needs; (d) the content and format; (e) testing the draft; (f) finalizing and approval; (g) dissemination and application, and (h) ownership and revision. The participants of the on-going tool development projects were positive about the quality criteria in general, but divided as to the degree of detail. Whereas some expressed a clear desire for procedural standards, others felt that it would be sufficient to provide only general directions. Despite the different views as to the degree of detail, consensus was reached in three stakeholder meetings. DISCUSSION: We successfully collaborated with all stakeholders and achieved formal support from national stakeholders on a set of minimum criteria for the development process, content and governance of patient-directed knowledge tools.

Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation .

Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour. There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients.

Effect of an evidence-based website on healthcare usage: an interrupted time-series study.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare costs and usage are rising. Evidence-based online health information may reduce healthcare usage, but the evidence is scarce. The objective of this study was to determine whether the release of a nationwide evidence-based health website was associated with a reduction in healthcare usage. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis of observational primary care data of healthcare use in the Netherlands from 2009 to 2014. SETTING: General community primary care. POPULATION: 912 000 patients who visited their general practitioners 18.1 million times during the study period. INTERVENTION: In March 2012, an evidence-based health information website was launched by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. It was easily accessible and understandable using plain language. At the end of the study period, the website had 2.9 million unique page views per month. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcome was the change in consultation rate (consultations/1000 patients/month) before and after the release of the website. Additionally, a reference group was created by including consultations about topics not being viewed at the website. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of consultations, sex, age and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: After launch of the website, the trend in consultation rate decreased with 1.620 consultations/1000 patients/month (p<0.001). This corresponds to a 12% decline in consultations 2 years after launch of the website. The trend in consultation rate of the reference group showed no change. The subgroup analyses showed a specific decline for consultations by phone and were significant for all other subgroups, except for the youngest age group. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare usage decreased by 12% after providing high-quality evidence-based online health information. These findings show that e-Health can be effective to improve self-management and reduce healthcare usage in times of increasing healthcare costs.

[What do you think of Thuisarts.nl? Experiences after 3 years of www.Thuisarts.nl]. / Thuisarts.nl, hoe bevalt dat? Ervaringen na 3 jaar Thuisarts.nl.

Many people need information on health and disease, but the internet is a maze of medical information. In order to offer patients reliable medical information, and to support general practitioners, the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) set up the public website Thuisarts.nl in 2011, which was later followed by an app. The NHG members survey amongst general practitioners from June 2013 showed that 90% of the general practitioners used Thuisarts.nl. The number of visitors was on average 60,000 a day. Information is also available from questionnaires filled in by the NIVEL Health Care Consumer Panel (n = 2846) and participants in a study on information technology and independence (n = 25). Thuisarts.nl meets an important need and is highly valued by doctors and patients. There are plans for the further development of Thuisarts.nl including short videos, illustrations, searchable anatomical structures and information from other reliable organisations such as associations of specialist doctors.

Shared decision making in the Netherlands, is the time ripe for nationwide, structural implementation?

WHAT ABOUT POLICY REGARDING SDM? The Dutch health care system has been reformed in 2006 to make it more patient-oriented and demand-driven. We shortly describe four strategies of this health care reform. Although research projects are now fully spread over the country, a coordinated research agenda on SDM is lacking. WHAT ABOUT TOOLS - DECISION SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS? The Dutch governmental healthcare internet portal for patients hosts 16 patient decision aids. WHAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL INTEREST AND IMPLEMENTATION? There is quite a strong patient participation movement in the Netherlands, on macro and meso level. Limited effort, related to the local research projects has been put into training professionals in SDM skills. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE? We need concerted action on the level of educating health care professionals, empowering patients, making patient decision aids easily accessible, supporting the professionals in this new task, and measuring the process of SDM in performance indicators used in quality assurance. The Dutch Platform for SDM that will be launched in Maastricht in June 2011 is therefore a timely and relevant initiative.