BackgroundThe Internet is viewed as an important source for health information and a medium for patient empowerment. However, little is known about how seniors use the Internet in relation to other sources for health information.ObjectiveThe aim was to determine which information resources seniors who use the Internet use and trust for health information, which sources are preferred, and which sources are used by seniors for different information needs.MethodsQuestions from published surveys were selected based on their relevance to the study objectives. The Autonomy Preference Index was used to assess information needs and preferences for involvement in health decisions. Invitation to participate in this online survey was sent to the email list of a local senior organization (298 addresses) in the Netherlands.ResultsThere were 118 respondents with a median age of 72 years (IQR 67-78 years). Health professionals, pharmacists, and the Internet were the most commonly used and trusted sources of health information. Leaflets, television, newspapers, and health magazines were also important sources. Respondents who reported higher use of the Internet also reported higher use of other sources (P<.001). Use of health professionals, pharmacists, leaflets, telephone, television, and radio were not significantly different; use of all other resources was significantly higher in frequent Internet users. When in need of health information, preferred sources were the Internet (46/105, 43.8%), other sources (eg, magazines 38/105, 36.2%), health professionals (18/105, 17.1%), and no information seeking (3/105, 2.8%). Of the 51/107 respondents who indicated that they had sought health information in the last 12 months, 43 sought it after an appointment, 23 were preparing for an appointment, and 20 were deciding if an appointment was needed. The source used varied by the type of information sought. The Internet was used most often for symptoms (27/42, 64%), prognosis (21/31, 68%), and treatment options (23/41, 62%), whereas health professionals were asked for additional information on medications (20/36, 56%), side effects (17/36, 47%), coping (17/31, 55%), practical care (12/14, 86%), and nutrition/exercise (18/30, 60%).ConclusionsFor these seniors who use the Internet, the Internet was a preferred source of health information. Seniors who report higher use of the Internet also report higher use of other information resources and were also the primary consumers of paper-based resources. Respondents most frequently searched for health information after an appointment rather than to prepare for an appointment. Resources used varied by health topic. Future research should seek to confirm these findings in a general elderly population, investigate how seniors seek and understand information on the Internet, and investigate how to reach seniors who prefer not to use the Internet for health information.

ContextBeing born very preterm is associated with elevated risk for neonatal mortality. The aim of this review is to give an overview of prediction models for mortality in very premature infants, assess their quality, identify important predictor variables, and provide recommendations for development of future models.MethodsStudies were included which reported the predictive performance of a model for mortality in a very preterm or very low birth weight population, and classified as development, validation, or impact studies. For each development study, we recorded the population, variables, aim, predictive performance of the model, and the number of times each model had been validated. Reporting quality criteria and minimum methodological criteria were established and assessed for development studies.ResultsWe identified 41 development studies and 18 validation studies. In addition to gestational age and birth weight, eight variables frequently predicted survival: being of average size for gestational age, female gender, non-white ethnicity, absence of serious congenital malformations, use of antenatal steroids, higher 5-minute Apgar score, normal temperature on admission, and better respiratory status. Twelve studies met our methodological criteria, three of which have been externally validated. Low reporting scores were seen in reporting of performance measures, internal and external validation, and handling of missing data.ConclusionsMultivariate models can predict mortality better than birth weight or gestational age alone in very preterm infants. There are validated prediction models for classification and case-mix adjustment. Additional research is needed in validation and impact studies of existing models, and in prediction of mortality in the clinically important subgroup of infants where age and weight alone give only an equivocal prognosis.

No abstract

BackgroundAdherence to guidelines pertaining to stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation is poor. Decision support systems have shown promise in increasing guideline adherence.AimsTo improve guideline adherence with a non-obtrusive clinical decision support system integrated in the workflow. Secondly, we seek to capture reasons for guideline non-adherence.Design and settingA cluster randomized controlled trial in Dutch general practices.MethodA decision support system was developed that implemented properties positively associated with effectiveness: real-time, non-interruptive and based on data from electronic health records. Recommendations were based on the Dutch general practitioners guideline for atrial fibrillation that uses the CHA2DS2-VAsc for stroke risk stratification. Usage data and responses to the recommendations were logged. Effectiveness was measured as adherence to the guideline. We used a chi square to test for group differences and a mixed effects model to correct for clustering and baseline adherence.ResultsOur analyses included 781 patients. Usage of the system was low (5%) and declined over time. In total, 76 notifications received a response: 58% dismissal and 42% acceptance. At the end of the study, both groups had improved, by 8% and 5% respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between groups (Control: 50%, Intervention: 55% P = 0.23). Clustered analysis revealed similar results. Only one usable reasons for non-adherence was captured.ConclusionOur study could not demonstrate the effectiveness of a decision support system in general practice, which was likely due to lack of use. Our findings should be used to develop next generation decision support systems that are effective in the challenging setting of general practice.