Making sense of a myocardial infarction in relation to changing lifestyle in the five months following the event: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has shown that experiencing an acute cardiac event, such as a myocardial infarction (MI), can lead to lifestyle changes. This study aimed to explore the potential of a MI as a 'teachable moment' (TM) for positive lifestyle changes and to identify psychosocial sensemaking processes that facilitate or hinder the presence of a TM. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 patients who suffered their first MI and were hospitalized in a larger Dutch city. Participants were interviewed twice, respectively one and five months after their hospitalization. They were encouraged to explain how they experienced their MI and how this had affected their lifestyle. We used an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis approach to the data collection and analysis. FINDINGS: The participants varied in their willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle due to their MI. Most participants experienced their event as a TM for changing specific health behaviors, for example facilitated by reflecting on self-concept or social roles and by constructing and comprehending a personal narrative of their MI. Some participants struggled to follow through on their intentions to change their behavior, for example because of a negative attitude towards a healthy behavior or because they perceived it as incongruent to their identity. Only three participants maintained most former health behaviors, for example because they failed to acknowledge their MI as severe or because of earlier life events that elicited more blunted cognitive responses. CONCLUSION: Cardiac patients may experience a TM, which is the consequence of interrelated processes of psychosocial sensemaking. As this does not occur at a singular time point, we suggest using the term 'teachable window' rather than 'moment'. Given these findings, there is a window of opportunity to provide continuous psychosocial and lifestyle support during and after hospitalization for acute cardiac events.

Opinions on hypertension care and therapy adherence at the healthcare provider and healthcare system level: a qualitative study in the Hague, Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Hypertension is a common cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although hypertension can be effectively controlled by blood pressure-lowering drugs, uncontrolled blood pressure is common despite use of these medications. One explanation is therapy non-adherence. Therapy non-adherence can be addressed at the individual level, the level of the healthcare provider and at the healthcare system level. Since the latter two levels are often overlooked, we wished to explore facilitators and barriers on each of these levels in relation to hypertension care for people with hypertension, with a specific focus on therapy adherence. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups of healthcare providers. Data were analysed using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the behaviour change wheel. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were from a highly urbanised city environment (the Hague, Netherlands), and included nine primary care physicians, six practice nurses and five secondary care physicians involved in hypertension care. RESULTS: Nine domains on the TDF were found to be relevant at the healthcare provider level ('knowledge', 'physical, cognitive and interpersonal skills', 'memory, attention and decision processes', 'professional, social role and identity', 'optimism', 'beliefs about consequences', 'intention', 'emotion' and 'social influences') and two domains ('resources' and 'goals') were found to be relevant at the system level. Facilitators for these domains were good interpersonal skills, paying attention to behavioural factors such as medication use, and the belief that treatment improves health outcomes. Barriers were related to time, interdisciplinary collaboration, technical and financial issues, availability of blood pressure devices and education of people with hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted a need for better collaboration between primary and secondary care, for more team-based care including pharmacists and social workers, tools to improve interpersonal skills and more time for patient-healthcare provider communication.

Experiences with tailoring of primary diabetes care in well-organised general practices: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management, particularly in light of current COVID-19 related constraints, protocols and other barriers may hinder implementation. The impact of dispensing with protocol and implementation of self-management interventions on patient monitoring and experiences are not known. This study aims to evaluate tailoring of care by understanding experiences of well-organised practices 1) when dispensing with protocol; 2) determining the key conditions for successful implementation of self-management interventions; and furthermore exploring patients' experiences regarding dispensing with protocol and self-management interventions. METHODS: in this mixed-methods prospective study, practices (n = 49) were invited to participate if they met protocol-related quality targets, and their adult patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes were invited if they had received protocol-based diabetes care for a minimum of 1 year. For practices, study participation consisted of the opportunity to deliver protocol-free diabetes care, with selection and implementation of self-management interventions. For patients, study participation provided exposure to protocol-free diabetes care and self-management interventions. Qualitative outcomes (practices: 5 focus groups, 2 individual interviews) included experiences of dispensing with protocol and the implementation process of self-management interventions, operationalised as implementation fidelity. Quantitative outcomes (patients: routine registry data, surveys) consisted of diabetes monitoring completeness, satisfaction, wellbeing and health status at baseline and follow-up (24 months). RESULTS: Qualitative: In participating practices (n = 4), dispensing with protocol encouraged reflection on tailored care and selection of various self-management interventions A focus on patient preferences, team collaboration and intervention feasibility was associated with high implementation fidelity Quantitative: In patients (n = 126), likelihood of complete monitoring decreased significantly after two years (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.5), p < 0.001) Satisfaction decreased slightly (- 1.6 (95% CI -2.6;-0.6), p = 0.001) Non-significant declines were found in wellbeing (- 1.3 (95% CI -5.4; 2.9), p = 0.55) and health status (- 3.0 (95% CI -7.1; 1.2), p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: To tailor diabetes care to individual patients within well-organised practices, we recommend dispensing with protocol while maintaining one structural annual monitoring consultation, combined with the well-supported implementation of feasible self-management interventions. Interventions should be selected and delivered with the involvement of patients and should involve population preferences and solid team collaborations.

Socioeconomic status is not associated with the delivery of care in people with diabetes but does modify HbA1c levels: An observational cohort study (Elzha-cohort 1).

BACKGROUND: Structured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators amongst people with type 2 diabetes and with better HbA1c levels. Whether socioeconomic status affects the delivery of care in terms of monitoring and its association with HbA1c levels within this approach, is unclear. This study aims to understand whether, within a structured care approach, (1) socioeconomic categories differ concerning diabetes monitoring as recommended; (2) socioeconomic status modifies the association between monitoring as recommended and HbA1c. METHODS: Observational real-life cohort study with primary care registry data from general practitioners within diverse socioeconomic areas, who are supported with the implementation of structured diabetes care. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus were offered quarterly diabetes consultations. "Monitoring as recommended" by professional guidelines implied minimally one annual registration of HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical activity. Regarding socioeconomic status, deprived, advantageous urban and advantageous suburban categories were compared to the intermediate category concerning (a) recommended monitoring; (b) association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c. RESULTS: Aim 1 (n = 13 601 people): Compared to the intermediate socioeconomic category, no significant differences in odds of being monitored as recommended were found in the deprived (OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.19-1.08)), advantageous urban (OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.46-3.54)) and advantageous suburban (OR 2.32 (95% CI 0.88-6.08)) categories. Aim 2 (n = 11 164 people): People with recommended monitoring had significantly lower HbA1c levels than incompletely monitored people (-2.4 (95% CI -2.9; -1.8) mmol/mol). SES modified monitoring-related HbA1c differences, which were significantly higher in the deprived (-3.3 (95% CI -4.3; -2.4) mmol/mol) than the intermediate category (-1.3 (95% CI -2.2; -0.4) mmol/mol). CONCLUSIONS: Within a structured diabetes care setting, socioeconomic status is not associated with recommended monitoring. Socioeconomic differences in the association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c levels advocate further exploration of practice and patient-related factors contributing to appropriate monitoring and for care adjustment to population needs.

Association between GP participation in a primary care group and monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators in people with type 2 diabetes: a cohort study (ELZHA cohort-1).

OBJECTIVE: Whether care group participation by general practitioners improves delivery of diabetes care is unknown. Using 'monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators as recommended by professional guidelines' as an operationalisation for quality of care, we explored whether (1) in new practices monitoring as recommended improved a year after initial care group participation (aim 1); (2) new practices and experienced practices differed regarding monitoring (aim 2). DESIGN: Observational, real-life cohort study. SETTING: Primary care registry data from Eerstelijns Zorggroep Haaglanden (ELZHA) care group. PARTICIPANTS: Aim 1: From six new practices (n=538 people with diabetes) that joined care group ELZHA in January 2014, two practices (n=211 people) were excluded because of missing baseline data; four practices (n=182 people) were included. Aim 2: From all six new practices (n=538 people), 295 individuals were included. From 145 experienced practices (n=21 465 people), 13 744 individuals were included. EXPOSURE: Care group participation includes support by staff nurses on protocolised diabetes care implementation and availability of a system providing individual monitoring information. 'Monitoring as recommended' represented minimally one annual registration of each biomedical (HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein) and lifestyle-related target indicator (body mass index, smoking behaviour, physical exercise). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Aim 1: In new practices, odds of people being monitored as recommended in 2014 were compared with baseline (2013). Aim 2: Odds of monitoring as recommended in new and experienced practices in 2014 were compared. RESULTS: Aim 1: After 1-year care group participation, odds of being monitored as recommended increased threefold (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.88, p<0.001). Aim 2: Compared with new practices, no significant differences in the odds of monitoring as recommended were found in experienced practices (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.18 to 8.37, p=0.844). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a sharp increase concerning biomedical and lifestyle monitoring as recommended after 1-year care group participation, and subsequently no significant difference between new and experienced practices-indicating that providing diabetes care within a collective approach rapidly improves registration of care.

Association between full monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators and HbA1c level in primary type 2 diabetes care: an observational cohort study (ELZHA-cohort 1).

OBJECTIVE: Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires frequent monitoring of patients. Within a collective care group setting, doubts on the clinical effects of registration are a barrier for full adoption of T2DM registration in general practice. We explored whether full monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators within a care group approach is associated with lower HbA1c levels. DESIGN: Observational, real-life cohort study. SETTING: Primary care data registry from the Hadoks (EerstelijnsZorggroepHaaglanden) care group. EXPOSURE: The care group provides general practitioners collectively with organisational support to facilitate structured T2DM primary care. Patients are offered quarterly medical and lifestyle-related consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Full monitoring of each target indicator in patients with T2DM which includes minimally one measure of HbA1c level, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical exercise between January and December 2014; otherwise, patients were defined as 'incompletely monitored'. HbA1c levels of 8137 fully monitored and 3958 incompletely monitored patients were compared, adjusted for the confounders diabetes duration, age and gender. Since recommended HbA1c values depend on age, medication use and diabetes duration, analyses were stratified into three HbA1c profile groups. Linear multilevel analyses enabled adjustment for general practice. RESULTS: Compared with incompletely monitored patients, fully monitored patients had significantly lower HbA1c levels (95% CI) in the first (-2.03 [-2.53 to -1.52] mmol/mol) (-0.19% [-0.23% to -0.14%]), second (-3.36 [-5.28 to -1.43] mmol/mol) (-0.31% [-0.48% to -0.13%]) and third HbA1c profile group (-1.89 [-3.76 to -0.01] mmol/mol) (-0.17% [-0.34% to 0.00%]). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study shows that in a care group setting, fully monitored patients had significantly lower HbA1c levels compared with incompletely monitored patients. Since this difference might have considerable clinical impact in terms of T2DM-related risks, this might help general practices in care group settings to overcome barriers on adequate registration and thus improve structured T2DM primary care. From population health management perspective, we recommend a systematic approach to adjust the structured care protocol for incompletely monitored subgroups.

Problems experienced by informal caregivers with older care recipients with and without cognitive impairment.

The care of older persons can have negative impact on the caregiver. The objective of this population-based observational study is to identify problems experienced by informal caregivers, and the extent of related difficulties, in their care of older care-dependent recipients with and without cognitive impairment. Caregivers (n = 2,704) caring for a home-dwelling person aged ≥ 75 years responded to a questionnaire with 23 questions on problems and related difficulties by mail. Prevalence of self-reported problems and related difficulties was calculated. The impact of the problem was estimated by weighing the percentage of problems reported as being difficult against the prevalence of problems. The median number of problems was 12 (range 0-23), with 5 (range 0-23) reported as difficult. Informal caregivers experience a variety of problems, with the impossibility to engage in joint social activities having the highest impact. The impact of problems increased when the care recipient had a cognitive problem.