ObjectivesHealthcare costs and usage are rising. Evidence-based online health information may reduce healthcare usage, but the evidence is scarce. The objective of this study was to determine whether the release of a nationwide evidence-based health website was associated with a reduction in healthcare usage.DesignInterrupted time series analysis of observational primary care data of healthcare use in the Netherlands from 2009 to 2014.SettingGeneral community primary care.Population912 000 patients who visited their general practitioners 18.1 million times during the study period.InterventionIn March 2012, an evidence-based health information website was launched by the Dutch College of General Practitioners. It was easily accessible and understandable using plain language. At the end of the study period, the website had 2.9 million unique page views per month.Main outcomes measuresPrimary outcome was the change in consultation rate (consultations/1000 patients/month) before and after the release of the website. Additionally, a reference group was created by including consultations about topics not being viewed at the website. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of consultations, sex, age and socioeconomic status.ResultsAfter launch of the website, the trend in consultation rate decreased with 1.620 consultations/1000 patients/month (p<0.001). This corresponds to a 12% decline in consultations 2 years after launch of the website. The trend in consultation rate of the reference group showed no change. The subgroup analyses showed a specific decline for consultations by phone and were significant for all other subgroups, except for the youngest age group.ConclusionsHealthcare usage decreased by 12% after providing high-quality evidence-based online health information. These findings show that e-Health can be effective to improve self-management and reduce healthcare usage in times of increasing healthcare costs.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Patient‐directed knowledge tools such as patient versions of guidelines and patient decision aids are increasingly developed to facilitate shared decision making. In this paper, we report how consensus was reached within the Netherlands on quality criteria for development, content and governance of these tools. Method A 12‐month development and consensus study. The consortium worked on four work packages: (a) reviewing existing criteria; (b) drafting the quality criteria; (c) safe‐guarding the acceptability and feasibility of the draft criteria by participatory research in on‐going tool development projects; and (d) gaining formal support from national stakeholders on the quality criteria. Results We reached consensus on a 8‐step guidance; describing minimal quality criteria for (a) the team composition; (b) setting the scope; (c) identifying needs; (d) the content and format; (e) testing the draft; (f) finalizing and approval; (g) dissemination and application, and (h) ownership and revision. The participants of the on‐going tool development projects were positive about the quality criteria in general, but divided as to the degree of detail. Whereas some expressed a clear desire for procedural standards, others felt that it would be sufficient to provide only general directions. Despite the different views as to the degree of detail, consensus was reached in three stakeholder meetings. Discussion We successfully collaborated with all stakeholders and achieved formal support from national stakeholders on a set of minimum criteria for the development process, content and governance of patient‐directed knowledge tools.

Background: Most of the national colleges of general practitioners (GPs) do not have their own dietary/nutritional tools, and GPs and nurses do not have the time, knowledge, or skills to advise their patients about desirable dietary practices. Objective: To assess the usefulness of a simple and practical guide on healthy diet to be used by European GPs and nurses. Design: A postal survey was mailed to 171 GPs and nurses from 12 European countries to obtain information about the usefulness of a guide on healthy diet developed by EUROPREV. Results: The perception of health professionals is that the main source of information on healthy diet for the population was the media. In all, 95% of GPs and nurses reported that the guide was useful; 93, 95, and 82% reported that the concepts were concise, easy to understand, and realistic, respectively. Also, 77% reported that the type of counselling recommended was feasible and could be applied, 94% reported that the implementation measures proposed could be effective and 88% reported that the Traditional Mediterranean Diet Pyramid is useful, but some concerns about the content were mentioned. Conclusions: GPs and nurses from Europe think that a practical guide on healthy diet developed by EUROPREV could be used to advise patients in primary care, although the Traditional Mediterranean Diet Pyramid should be modified.

No abstract

In the Netherlands the general practitioner (GP) plays an important role in prevention. Every Dutch citizen has to be registered with one GP and GPs know their patients well. Face-to-face contact is a relatively effective means of influencing behavior; if preventive advice is related to a patient's state of health, compliance may be stimulated. However, Dutch GPs have shown reluctance toward preventive work. Curing rather than preventing disease is emphasized in medical school. Many GPs doubt that they are entitled to interfere with a patients' lifestyle unless asked. Some GPs are aware of their limited knowledge of nutrition. Preventive work requires some reorganization of medical practice and can lead to an increased workload, without financial compensation. Then there is the "prevention paradox": preventive actions that have a demonstrable effect on the whole population bring only small benefits for individuals. Since 1989 the Dutch College of General Practitioners has published 60 standards for general practice. Several of these include advice on lifestyle and diet, eg, for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, peptic ulcer, and heart failure. Prevention work in general practice must use only interventions proved to be effective and they must be feasible in the context of general practice. A trial collaboration of 118 GPs and 5 public health authorities between 1988 and 1990 for screening and lifestyle management of hypertension was a limited success. It brought to light the practical problems of this type of work in general practice. Present government priorities for GP-public health collaboration are influenza vaccination and cervical screening.

No abstract