자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon Guba, "Postpositivism and the Naturalist Paradigm," pp. 14-46 in Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.*

This report updates the 2002 recommendations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of influenza vaccine and antiviral agents (CDC. Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices [ACIP]. MMWR 2002;51 [No. RR-3]:1-31). The 2003 recommendations include new or updated information regarding 1) the timing of influenza vaccination by age and risk group; 2) influenza vaccine for children aged 6-23 months; 3) the 2003-2004 trivalent inactivated vaccine virus strains: A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2)-like, A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like, and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigens (for the A/Moscow/10/99 [H3N2]-like antigen, manufacturers will use the antigenically equivalent A/Panama/2007/99 [H3N2] virus, and for the B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like antigen, manufacturers will use either B/Hong Kong/330/2001 or the antigenically equivalent B/Hong Kong/1434/2002); 4) availability of certain influenza vaccine doses with reduced thimerosal content, including single 0.25 mL-dose syringes; and 5) manufacturers of influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. Although the optimal time to vaccinate against influenza is October and November, vaccination in December and later continues to be strongly recommended A link to this report and other information regarding influenza can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/fluvirus.htm.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6625/cdc_6625_DS1.pdf

Prevention and control of influenza : recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Stolper CF, Van de Wiel MWJ, Van Royen P, Brand PLP, Dinant GJ. Hoe pluis is het niet-pluisgevoel? Huisarts Wet 2015;58(4):192-5.

Hoe pluis is het niet-pluisgevoel?

Next to the well-known micro- and macrovascular complications, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremities referred to as limited joint mobility (LJM), e.g. carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and adhesive capsulitis. Unrecognized and untreated LJM can lead to poor quality of life and non-compliance to diabetes treatment which aggravates LJM. Despite its reported higher prevalence in international prevalence studies, examination of the upper extremities is still no part of the regular diabetes mellitus (DM) check-ups. The primary aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the awareness of Dutch GPs and nurse practitioners concerning LJM. Secondary aims were to evaluate the current management of a patient with LJM, and to assess opinions regarding the question of who should screen for LJM if this is done in the near future. An online survey was conducted among 390 general practitioners (GPs) and 245 nurse practitioners (NPs) of three diabetes care groups in The Netherlands to assess their awareness of the association between DM and LJM. Most GPs are not aware that LJM is a DM complication, with an unawareness for specific upper extremity disorders ranging from 59 to 73%. Of the NPs, 76% is not aware either. Only 41% of GPs would advise the most optimal treatment for diabetes patient with CTS. Finally, only 25% of the GPs believe that screening for LJM should be performed during the regular diabetes check-up compared to 63% of the NPs. The majority of GPs and NPs are not aware of LJM as a T2DM complication. In contrast to NPs, most GPs do not believe that screening for LJM should be performed during the regular diabetes check-up.

/pdf/awareness-of-limited-joint-mobility-in-type-2-diabetes-in-400ng1veru.pdf

Awareness of limited joint mobility in type 2 diabetes in general practice in the Netherlands: an online questionnaire survey.

Hopstaken RM, Stobberingh EE, Knottnerus JA, Muris JWM, Nelemans PJ, Rinkens PELM, Dinant GJ. Virale en bacteriele lageluchtweginfecties zijn in de dagelijkse praktijk niet van elkaar te onderscheiden. Huisarts Wet 2005;48(13):660-5.

Virale en bacteriële lageluchtweginfecties zijn in de dagelijkse praktijk niet van elkaar te onderscheiden

We investigated the ability of the leucocyte count to discriminate between "inflammatory diseases and malignancies" on the one hand and other, often harmless and self-limiting diseases on the other, and compared this ability with that of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) in general practice. In cooperation with nine general practitioners (GP) we prospectively followed 151 patients who were seen by their GP because of a new complaint for which the GP wanted to know their ESR. ESR and one leucocyte count measurement (Technicon H6000) were performed at the local hospital laboratory. The patients were seen again after three months, to determine the follow-up diagnoses. By comparing the test results with the follow-up diagnoses, ESR was found to have a better discriminating ability than the leucocyte count test (ESR: sensitivity = 53%, specificity = 84%, positive predictive value = 29%, negative predictive value = 93%, Odds Ratio = 5.73). Using Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis, this conclusion could be shown to be independent of the chosen reference values. We conclude that the determination of the leucocyte count is not a clinically interesting alternative to ESR.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/02813439109018533

Geert-Jan Dinant

Papers

Hoe pluis is het niet-pluisgevoel?

Awareness of limited joint mobility in type 2 diabetes in general practice in the Netherlands: an online questionnaire survey.

Virale en bacteriële lageluchtweginfecties zijn in de dagelijkse praktijk niet van elkaar te onderscheiden

Leucocyte Count as an Alternative to ESR in General Practice

Shifts in the Care for Patients Presenting in Primary Care With Anxiety; Stepped Collaborative Care Parameters From More than a Decade