BackgroundDisability in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) is an adverse outcome of frailty that places a burden on frail elderly people, care providers and the care system. Knowing which physical frailty indicators predict ADL disability is useful in identifying elderly people who might benefit from an intervention that prevents disability or increases functioning in daily life. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the predictive value of physical frailty indicators on ADL disability in community-dwelling elderly people.MethodsA systematic search was performed in 3 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE) from January 1975 until April 2010. Prospective, longitudinal studies that assessed the predictive value of individual physical frailty indicators on ADL disability in community-dwelling elderly people aged 65 years and older were eligible for inclusion. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers who also assessed the quality of the included studies.ResultsAfter initial screening of 3081 titles, 360 abstracts were scrutinized, leaving 64 full text articles for final review. Eventually, 28 studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of these studies was rated by both reviewers on a scale from 0 to 27. All included studies were of high quality with a mean quality score of 22.5 (SD 1.6). Findings indicated that individual physical frailty indicators, such as weight loss, gait speed, grip strength, physical activity, balance, and lower extremity function are predictors of future ADL disability in community-dwelling elderly people.ConclusionsThis review shows that physical frailty indicators can predict ADL disability in community-dwelling elderly people. Slow gait speed and low physical activity/exercise seem to be the most powerful predictors followed by weight loss, lower extremity function, balance, muscle strength, and other indicators. These findings should be interpreted with caution because the data of the different studies could not be pooled due to large variations in operationalization of the indicators and ADL disability across the included studies. Nevertheless, our study suggests that monitoring physical frailty indicators in community-dwelling elderly people might be useful to identify elderly people who could benefit from disability prevention programs.

BackgroundSelf-management is considered as an essential component of chronic care by primary care professionals. eHealth is expected to play an important role in supporting patients in their self-management. For effective implementation of eHealth it is important to investigate patients’ expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth. The objectives of this study are to investigate expectations and needs of people with a chronic condition regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes, their willingness to use eHealth, and possible differences between patient groups regarding these topics.MethodsFive focus groups with people with diabetes (n = 14), COPD (n = 9), and a cardiovascular condition (n = 7) were conducted in this qualitative research. Separate focus groups were organized based on patients’ chronic condition. The following themes were discussed: 1) the impact of the chronic disease on patients’ daily life; 2) their opinions and needs regarding self-management; and 3) their expectations and needs regarding, and willingness to use, eHealth for self-management purposes. A conventional content analysis approach was used for coding.ResultsPatient groups seem to differ in expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management purposes. People with diabetes reported most needs and benefits regarding self-management and were most willing to use eHealth, followed by the COPD group. People with a cardiovascular condition mentioned having fewer needs for self-management support, because their disease had little impact on their life. In all patient groups it was reported that the patient, not the care professional, should choose whether or not to use eHealth. Moreover, participants reported that eHealth should not replace, but complement personal care. Many participants reported expecting feelings of anxiety by doing measurement themselves and uncertainty about follow-up of deviant data of measurements. In addition, many participants worried about the implementation of eHealth being a consequence of budget cuts in care.ConclusionThis study suggests that aspects of eHealth, and the way in which it should be implemented, should be tailored to the patient. Patients’ expected benefits of using eHealth to support self-management and their perceived controllability over their disease seem to play an important role in patients’ willingness to use eHealth for self-management purposes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1484-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) solutions are considered to relieve current and future pressure on the sustainability of primary health care systems. However, evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth in daily practice is missing. Furthermore, eHealth solutions are often not implemented structurally after a pilot phase, even if successful during this phase. Although many studies on barriers and facilitators were published in recent years, eHealth implementation still progresses only slowly. To further unravel the slow implementation process in primary health care and accelerate the implementation of eHealth, a 3-year Living Lab project was set up. In the Living Lab, called eLabEL, patients, health care professionals, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and research institutes collaborated to select and integrate fully mature eHealth technologies for implementation in primary health care. Seven primary health care centers, 10 SMEs, and 4 research institutes participated.ObjectiveThis viewpoint paper aims to show the process of adoption of eHealth in primary care from the perspective of different stakeholders in a qualitative way. We provide a real-world view on how such a process occurs, including successes and failures related to the different perspectives.MethodsReflective and process-based notes from all meetings of the project partners, interview data, and data of focus groups were analyzed systematically using four theoretical models to study the adoption of eHealth in primary care.ResultsThe results showed that large-scale implementation of eHealth depends on the efforts of and interaction and collaboration among 4 groups of stakeholders: patients, health care professionals, SMEs, and those responsible for health care policy (health care insurers and policy makers). These stakeholders are all acting within their own contexts and with their own values and expectations. We experienced that patients reported expected benefits regarding the use of eHealth for self-management purposes, and health care professionals stressed the potential benefits of eHealth and were interested in using eHealth to distinguish themselves from other care organizations. In addition, eHealth entrepreneurs valued the collaboration among SMEs as they were not big enough to enter the health care market on their own and valued the collaboration with research institutes. Furthermore, health care insurers and policy makers shared the ambition and need for the development and implementation of an integrated eHealth infrastructure.ConclusionsFor optimal and sustainable use of eHealth, patients should be actively involved, primary health care professionals need to be reinforced in their management, entrepreneurs should work closely with health care professionals and patients, and the government needs to focus on new health care models stimulating innovations. Only when all these parties act together, starting in local communities with a small range of eHealth tools, the potential of eHealth will be enforced.

With a worldwide incidence of 15 million cases, preterm birth is a major contributor to neonatal mortality and morbidity, and concomitant social and economic burden Preterm infants are predisposed to life-long neurological disorders due to the immaturity of the brain. The risks are inversely proportional to maturity at birth. In the majority of extremely preterm infants (<28 weeks’ gestation), perinatal brain injury is associated with exposure to multiple inflammatory perinatal triggers that include antenatal infection (i.e., chorioamnionitis), hypoxia-ischemia, and various postnatal injurious triggers (i.e., oxidative stress, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic instability). These perinatal insults cause a self-perpetuating cascade of peripheral and cerebral inflammation that plays a critical role in the etiology of diffuse white and grey matter injuries that underlies a spectrum of connectivity deficits in survivors from extremely preterm birth. This review focuses on chorioamnionitis and hypoxia-ischemia, which are two important antenatal risk factors for preterm brain injury, and highlights the latest insights on its pathophysiology, potential treatment, and future perspectives to narrow the translational gap between preclinical research and clinical applications.