Background: Fifty to eighty percent of patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a form of sexual dysfunction (SD), even after renal transplantation. Despite this, inquiring about SD is often not included in the daily practice of renal care providers. Objectives: This paper explores the perspectives of renal social workers regarding sexual care for patients and evaluates their practice,attitude towards responsibility and knowledge of SD. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a 41-item online survey. Participants: Seventy-nine members of the Dutch Federation of Social Workers Nephrology. Results: It was revealed that 60% of respondents discussed SD with a fifth of their patients. Frequency of discussion was associated with experience (p¼0.049), knowledge (p¼0.001), supplementary education (p¼0.006), and the availability of protocols on sexual care (p¼0.007).Main barriers towards discussing SD consisted of ‘culture and religion’ (51.9%), ‘language and ethnicity’ (49.4%), and ‘presence of a third person’ (45.6%). Sufficient knowledge of SD was present in 28% of respondents. The responsibility for discussion was 96% nephrologists and 81% social workers. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that a part of Dutch nephrology social workers do not provide sexual care regularly, due to insufficient experience and sexual knowledge, absence of privacy and protocols and barriers based on cultural diversity. According to the respondents the responsibility for this aspect of care should be multidisciplinary. Recommendations include a need for further education on the topic, private opportunities to discuss SD and multidisciplinary guidelines on sexual care
MULTIFILE
PurposeThis study evaluated current fertility care forCKD patients by assessing the perspectives of nephrolo-gists and nurses in the dialysis department.MethodsTwo different surveys were distributed forthis cross-sectional study among Dutch nephrologists(N=312) and dialysis nurses (N=1211). ResultsResponse rates were 50.9% (nephrologists) and45.4% (nurses). Guidelines on fertility care were presentin the departments of 9.0% of the nephrologists and 15.6%of the nurses. 61.7% of the nephrologists and 23.6% ofthe nurses informed ≥50% of their patients on potentialchanges in fertility due to a decline in renal function.Fertility subjects discussed by nephrologists included “wishto have children” (91.2%), “risk of pregnancy for patients’health” (85.8%), and “inheritance of the disease” (81.4%).Barriers withholding nurses from discussing FD werebased on “the age of the patient” (62.6%), “insufficienttraining” (55.2%), and “language and ethnicity” (51.6%).29.2% of the nurses felt competent in discussing fertility,8.3% had sufficient knowledge about fertility, and 75.7%needed to expand their knowledge. More knowledge andcompetence were associated with providing fertility healthcare (p< 0.01). ConclusionsIn most nephrology departments, the guide-lines to appoint which care provider should provide fertil-ity care to CKD patients are absent. Fertility counselingis routinely provided by most nephrologists, nurses oftenskip this part of care mainly due to insufficiencies in self-imposed competence and knowledge and barriers based oncultural diversity. The outcomes identified a need for fer-tility guidelines in the nephrology department and trainingand education for nurses on providing fertility care. CC BY 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
MULTIFILE
Objective: To describe the development of a goal-directed movement intervention in two medical wards, including recommendations for implementation and evaluation. Design: Implementation Research. Setting: Pulmonology and nephrology/gastroenterology wards of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands. Participants: Seven focus groups were executed including 28 nurses, 7 physical therapists and 15 medical specialists. Patients' perceptions were repeatedly assessed during the iterative steps of the intervention development. Intervention: Interventions were targeted to each ward's specific character, following an Intervention Mapping approach using literature and research meetings. Main measures: Intervention components were linked to Behavior Change Techniques and implementation strategies will be selected using the Expert Recommendation Implementing Change tool. Evaluation outcomes like number of patients using the movement intervention will be measured, based on the taxonomy of Proctor. Results: The developed intervention consists of: insight in patients movement behavior (monitoring & feedback), goal setting (goals & planning) and adjustments to the environment (associations & antecedents). The following implementation strategies are recommended: to conduct educational meetings, prepare & identify champions and audit & provide feedback. To measure service and client outcomes, the mean level of physical activity per ward can be evaluated and the Net Promoter Score can be used. Conclusion(s): This study shows the development of a goal-directed movement intervention aligned with the needs of healthcare professionals. This resulted in an intervention consisting of feedback & monitoring of movement behavior, goal setting and adjustments in the environment. Using a step-by-step iterative implementation model to guide development and implementation is recommended.
