Practice variation amongst preventive child healthcare professionals in the prevention of child maltreatment in the Netherlands: Qualitative and quantitative data.

This article provides both qualitative and quantitative data on practice variation amongst preventive child healthcare professionals in the prevention of child maltreatment in the Netherlands. Qualitative data consist of topics identified during interviews with 11 experts (with quotes), resulting in an online survey. The quantitative data are survey responses from 1104 doctors and nurses working in 29 preventive child healthcare organizations. Additionally, the interview topic list, the qualitative data analysis methodology, the survey (in English and Dutch) and anonymized raw survey data (http://hdl.handle.net/10411/5LJOGH) are provided as well. This data-in-brief article accompanies the paper "Variation in prevention of child maltreatment by Dutch child healthcare professionals" by Simeon Visscher and Henk van Stel [1].

Variation in prevention of child maltreatment by Dutch child healthcare professionals.

Child maltreatment (CM) is a common condition with a large impact on the victim and society. In the Netherlands, the preventive child healthcare (CHC) aims to protect children against such threats. However, several studies indicate that the efficacy in this area may be suboptimal for many CHC professionals. Therefore, this study aims to map the practice variation in the primary and secondary prevention of CM, by CHC physicians and nurses. This mixed-methods study used interviews to identify relevant topics and develop an online questionnaire. All CHC organizations in the Netherlands (n=45) were asked to forward this questionnaire to their professionals. Practice variation was described with domain scores and item response distributions. Multi-level analysis was used to assess case mix-corrected variance between organizations. Interview participants (n=11) expected suboptimal care in 35 topics which they considered important for prevention of CM, resulting in a 15min questionnaire. Nearly two-thirds of the organizations (n=29) agreed to forward the questionnaire to their employees. The response rate was 42% (n=1104). Suboptimal care and practice variation was found in all domains (i.e. communication, medical expertise, collaboration, involvement in prevention of CM, and improvement opportunities), mostly caused by intra-organization variance. Significant inter-organization variance was found for collaboration (variance partition coefficient 6-7%) and involvement (2-3%). Furthermore, the majority of the respondents (96%) reported fear in acting upon suspicions of CM. Substantial suboptimal care and practice variation in prevention of CM warrant action from authorities, CHC training institutes, CHC organizations, and professionals.

The disease recurrence rate after the canal wall up or canal wall down technique in adults.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To review which type of cholesteatoma surgery, canal wall up (CWU) or canal wall down (CWD), provides the lowest risk for residual and/or recurrent disease in adults with primary acquired cholesteatoma. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science. STUDY DESIGN: We selected articles comparing CWU with CWD, reporting on disease recidivism (combined residual and recurrent disease) or independent residual or disease recurrence rates. We included studies with a moderate to high relevance. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,060 articles. We selected seven studies that carried a moderate risk of bias. Six studies described higher disease recidivism after the CWU procedure [16.7-61.0%] compared to the CWD technique [0-13.2%]. Four studies showed statistical significant difference (P < .05). One study showed opposite results: recidivism was found in 7.8% CWU and in 22.1% CWD cases (P < .001). Studies showed CWU recidivism more likely to be residual disease, whereas CWD recidivism tended to be recurrent disease. CONCLUSION: The majority of included studies showed CWU to result in more disease recidivism compared to the CWD technique in adult patients with a primary acquired cholesteatoma. If recidivism risk is the most important factor to consider a certain surgical technique, we recommend application of the CWD procedure. However, many additional factors in patient care will define the best treatment decision, such as residual hearing and access to health care. Our recommendations are based on Level II evidence, which underlines the need for future high-level evidence studies.