Purpose In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). Methods A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. Results After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. Conclusion This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Our cross-sectional data suggest that early glycemic and blood pressure control, perhaps even in the prediabetic stage, may be promising therapeutic targets for the prevention of diabetes-associated decrements in cognitive performance.

Background: Numerous instruments have been developed to assess patient reported outcomes; most approaches however focus on a single condition. With the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, this might no longer be appropriate. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach that facilitates shared decision making and stimulates selfmanagement is most likely more valuable for clinical practice than a questionnaire alone. This study aims to transform the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (ABC)-tool into the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool for COPD, asthma, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). The tool consists of a scale, a visualisation of the outcomes, and treatment advice. Methods: Requirements for the tool were formulated. Questionnaires were developed based on a literature study of existing questionnaires, clinical guidelines, interviews with patients and healthcare providers, and input from an expert group. Cut-off points and treatment advice were determined to display the results and to provide practical recommendations.Results: The ABCC-scale consists of a generic questionnaire and disease-specific questionnaires, which can be combined into a single individualized questionnaire for each patient. Results are displayed in one balloon chart, and each domain includes practical recommendations. Conclusions: The ABCC-tool is expected to facilitate conversations between a patient and a healthcare provider, and to help formulate treatment plans and care plans with personalised goals. By facilitating an integrated approach, this instrument can be applied in a variety of circumstances and disease combinations.

Seizures after intracerebral hemorrhage are repeatedly seen. Whether the development of seizures after intracerebral hemorrhage affects survival in the long term is unknown. This study aims to determine the relation between seizures (i.e., with and without anti-epileptic therapy) and long-term mortality risk in a large patient population with intracerebral hemorrhage. We retrospectively included patients with a non-traumatic ICH in all three hospitals in the South Limburg region in the Netherlands between January 1st 2004 and December 31st 2009, and we assessed all-cause mortality until March 14th 2016. Patient who did not survive the first seven days after intracerebral hemorrhage were excluded from analyses. We used Cox multivariate analyses to determine independent predictors of mortality. Of 1214 patients, 783 hemorrhagic stroke patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, amongst whom 37 (4.7%) patients developed early seizures (within 7 days after hemorrhage) and 77 (9.8%) developed late seizures (more than 7 days after hemorrhage). Seizure development was not significantly related to mortality risk after correction for conventional vascular risk factors and hemorrhage severity. However, we found a small but independent relation between the use of anti-epileptic drugs and a lower long-term mortality (HR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.11–0.91). In our large population, seizures and epilepsy did not relate independently to an increased mortality risk after hemorrhage.

Background In the last decades, the number of cancer survivors has increased significantly due to improved treatment and better detection of recurrence. This increased survival redirects the scope from survival towards optimising functional outcomes and improving health-related quality of life (HRQol). Functional and HRQoL outcomes can be assessed with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the use of PROMs in daily oncological care is not common. This qualitative study investigates the barriers and facilitators of PROM use in an oncological setting, from the perspective of the healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted among Dutch oncological HCPs. Barriers and facilitators of PROM implementation were identified on various levels of the healthcare system (i.e. level of the patient, individual professional, medical team, and healthcare organisation). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were manually analysed by two independent reviewers using a thematic approach. Identified barriers and facilitators were categorised into Grol and Wensing’s framework for changing healthcare practice. Results Nineteen oncological HCPs working in academic and non-academic hospitals were interviewed. Barriers for PROM implementation were lack of good IT support, lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs, lack of time to complete and interpret PROMs, and a high administrative burden. PROM implementation can be facilitated by providing clear guidance regarding PROM interpretation, evidence that PROMs can save time, and stimulating multidisciplinary teamwork. Conclusion From a HCP point of view, adequately functioning IT technology, sufficient knowledge on PROMs, and dedicated time during the consultation are essential for successful implementation of PROMs in oncological care. Additional local context-specific factors need to be thoroughly addressed.

BackgroundThe intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) score is a commonly used prognostic model for 30-day mortality in ICH, based on five independent predictors (ICH volume, location, Glasgow Coma Scale, age, and intraventricular extension). Use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) is also associated with mortality but was not considered in the ICH score. We investigated (a) whether the predictive performance of ICH score is similar in OAC-ICH and non-OAC-ICH and (b) whether addition of OAC use to the ICH score increases the prognostic performance of the score.MethodsWe retrospectively selected all consecutive adult non-traumatic ICH cases (three hospitals, region South-Limburg, the Netherlands 2004–2009). Mortality at 30 days was recorded. Using univariable and multivariable logistic regression, association between OAC use and 30-day mortality was tested. Then (a) we computed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for ICH score and determined the area under the curve (AUC) in OAC-ICH and non-OAC-ICH. Then (b) we created a New ICH score by adding OAC use to the ICH score. We calculated correlation between 30-day mortality and ICH score, respectively, New ICH score using Spearman correlation test. We computed ROC curves and calculated the AUC.ResultsWe analyzed 1,232 cases, 282 (22.9%) were OAC related ICH. Overall, 30-day mortality was 39.3%. OAC use was independently associated with 30-day mortality (OR 2.09, 95% CI, 1.48–2.95; p < 0.001), corrected for the five predictors of the ICH score. The ICH score performed slightly better in non-OAC-ICH (AUC 0.840) than in OAC-ICH (AUC 0.816), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.39). The ICH score and the New ICH score were both significantly correlated with 30-day mortality (rho 0.58, p < 0.001 and 0.59, p < 0.001, respectively). The AUC for the ICH score was 0.837, for New ICH score 0.840. This difference was not significant.ConclusionThe ICH score is a useful tool for predicting 30-day mortality both in patient who use and patients who do not use OAC. Although OAC use is an independent predictor of 30-day mortality, addition of OAC use to the existing ICH score does not increase the prognostic performance of this score.

IntroductionThe number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure.Methods and analysisThe study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients’ activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

PURPOSEThe Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to improve care by facilitating shared decision making and self-management. It assesses and visualizes the experienced burden of 1 or multiple chronic conditions and integrates it in daily care. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the ABCC scale is valid and reliable in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, or type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODSThe Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), and the Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life Questionnaire (ADDQoL19) were compared with the ABCC scale to assess convergent validity. The internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was evaluated at a 2-week interval.RESULTS A total of 65 people with COPD, 62 with asthma, and 60 with T2D were included. The ABCC scale correlated, in accordance with hypotheses, with the SGRQ (75% of correlations ≥0.7), AQLQ-S (100%), and ADDQoL19 (75%). The ABCC scale was internally consistent with a Cronbach's α of 0.90, 0.92, and 0.91 for the total score for people with COPD, asthma, and T2D, respectively. The ABCC scale had a good test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95, 0.93, and 0.95 for people with COPD, asthma, and T2D, respectively. CONCLUSIONSThe ABCC scale is a valid and reliable questionnaire that can be used within the ABCC tool for people with COPD, asthma, or T2D. Future research should indicate whether this applies to people with multimorbidity, and what the effects and experiences are upon clinical use.