Background. One of the stakeholders in tackling the rise and health consequences of overweight and obesity is the general practice physician (GP). GPs are in a good position to inform and give nutrition guidance to overweight patients. Objective. Assessment of working mechanism of determinants of the nutrition guidance practice: noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment by GPs [linear analysis of structural relations (LISREL) path model] in a longitudinal study. Methods. This longitudinal study measured data in 1992, 1997 and 2007. The 1992 LISREL path model (Hiddink GJ, Hautvast J, vanWoerkumCMJ, Fieren CJ, vantHofMA. Nutrition guidance by primary-care physicians: LISREL analysis improves understanding. Prev Med 1997; 26: 29–36.) demonstrated that ‘noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment’ was directly and indirectly influenced by predisposing factors, driving forces and perceived barriers. This article defines and discusses the path analysis of the 2007 data (compared with 1997). Results. This analysis shows both similarity and differences inworking mechanism of determinants of noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment between 1997 and 2007. The backbone of themechanism with four predisposing factors is the similarity. The number of driving forces and of paths through intermediary factors to the dependent variable constitutes the difference. Conclusions. The backbone of the working mechanism of determinants of the nutrition guidance practice: noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment by GPs was similar in 2007 and 1997. The influence of GPs task perception on noticing patients’ overweight and guidance of treatment considerably increased in 2007 compared to 1997. The longitudinal character of this article gives a strong practice-based evidence for weight management by GPs.
In deze bijdrage wordt een habitusmodel gepresenteerd dat voortbouwt op de leerstijlmodellenvan Kolb, Vermunt en anderen. In het model worden vier houdingen aangegeven. De resultaten van een eerste toetsingsonderzoek worden vermeld en er worden mogelijkheden voor vervolgonderzoek en praktische implicaties aangegeven.
Background: A patient decision aid (PtDA) can support shared decision making (SDM) in preference-sensitive care, with more than one clinically applicable treatment option. The development of a PtDA is a complex process, involving several steps, such as designing, developing and testing the draft with all the stakeholders, known as alpha testing. This is followed by testing in ‘real life’ situations, known as beta testing, and then finalising the definite version. Our aim was developing and alpha testing a PtDA for primary treatment of early stage breast cancer, ensuring that the tool is considered relevant, valid and feasible by patients and professionals. Methods: Our qualitative descriptive study applied various methods including face-to-face think-aloud interviews, a focus group and semi-structured telephone interviews. The study population consisted of breast cancer patients facing the choice between breast-conserving therapy with or without preceding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy, and professionals involved in breast cancer care in dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer teams. Results: A PtDA was developed in four iterative test rounds, taking nearly 2 years, involving 26 patients and 26 professionals. While the research group initially opted for simplicity for the sake of implementation, the clinicians objected that the complexity of the decision could not be ignored. Other topics of concern were the conflicting views of professionals and patients regarding side effects, the amount of information and how to present it. Conclusion: The development was an extensive process, because the professionals rejected the simplifications proposed by the research group. This resulted in the development of a completely new draft PtDA, which took double the expected time and resources. The final version of the PtDA appeared to be well-appreciated by professionals and patients, although its acceptability will only be proven in actual practice (beta testing)
