Biomedical subjects

M van Santen-Hoeufft

Publications and source records attributed to M van Santen-Hoeufft.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Rhemulatologists' performance in dailiy practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess rheumatologists' performance for 8 rheumatologic conditions and to explore possible explanatory factors. METHODS: After written informed consent was obtained, 27 rheumatologists (21% of all Dutch rheumatologists) practicing in 16 outpatient departments were each visited by 8 incognito "standardized patients" (SPs). The diagnoses of these 8 cases account for about 23% of all new referred patients in the Netherlands. Results for ordered lab tests as well as real radiographs with corresponding results from a radiologist were simulated. Information from the visits was obtained from the SPs, who completed predefined case-specific checklists, and by collecting data on resource utilization. Feedback was provided. RESULTS: Altogether 254 encounters took place, of which 201 were first visits and 53 were followup visits. SPs were unmasked twice during a visit. There was considerable variation in resource utilization (lab tests and imaging) between cases and between rheumatologists. Mean costs per rheumatologist ranged from US $ 4.67 to $ 65.36 per visit for lab tests and from US $ 33.15 to $ 226.84 per visit for imaging tests. No significant correlations were seen between resource utilization costs and number of years of clinical experience or performance on checklist scores. Rheumatologists with longer experience had lower total item checklist scores (r = -0.47; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A considerable variation in resource utilization was found among 27 Dutch rheumatologists. The information obtained is an excellent source for discussion on the appropriateness of care.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Patient utilities in fibromyalgia and the association with other outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: To compare in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) utilities derived by rating scale and standard gamble methods; to gain insight into construct validity by relating utility values to other outcome measures; to assess the sensitivity to change of utilities. METHODS: A total of 73 patients with FM were randomized into one of 3 groups: low impact fitness training, biofeedback, or controls. At baseline and after 6 mo the Maastricht Utility Measurement Questionnaire was applied. By means of both the rating scale and standard gamble method patients were asked to value their own health status. Construct validity of patient utility measurements was evaluated by Spearman correlation and multiple regression of baseline values with pain, stiffness, patient's global assessment, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire and Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS). Sensitivity to change was assessed against changes in these outcomes. RESULTS: Rating scale utilities correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with patient's global assessment (rs = 0.53), pain (rs = -0.47), SIP (rs = -0.43), and with 9 of 11 dimensions of the AIMS (rs ranging from 0.23 to 0.62). Standard gamble utilities correlated significantly with mobility, pain, and arthritis impact of the AIMS scale (rs from 0.22 to 0.36) and with pain by visual analog scale (rs = -0.24) and patient's global assessment (rs = 0.32). Multiple regression analysis showed that patient's global assessment explained 41% (rating scale) and 10% (standard gamble) of total variance in baseline utilities. Also, 16% of the variance in change in rating scale utility values was explained by changes in patient's global assessment. In contrast, variance of changes in standard gamble utility values was not explained significantly by changes in other disease outcomes. CONCLUSION: Rating scale utilities correlated more strongly with disease outcome measures than standard gamble utilities. Also, construct validity for the rating scale was better than for the standard gamble. In FM, utility measurement is sensitive to the method chosen to elicit patient priorities.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1995

Problem elicitation to assess patient priorities in ankylosing spondylitis and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: To elicit patient priorities as outcome measures in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and fibromyalgia (FM); to relate these measures to other outcomes; to assess construct validity and sensitivity to change of the problem elicitation technique (PET) questionnaire. METHODS: One hundred thirty-four patients with AS were randomly allocated to weekly sessions of group physical therapy or daily exercises at home, whereas 73 patients with FM were randomized into one of 3 groups (low impact fitness, biofeedback, controls). The PET questionnaire was applied by trained interviewers at baseline and at 6 (FM) and 9 (AS) month followup. A PET score was calculated at each assessment. Construct validity of the PET was assessed by correlation and multiple regression of baseline values with other disease outcomes (pain, stiffness, patient's global assessment, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS), patient utilities). Sensitivity to change of PET was assessed against changes in these outcomes and by comparing the efficiency of the PET with other outcomes. RESULTS: Patients with FM identified more problems (mean 6.8) than patients with AS (mean 4.4). Moreover, more patients with AS than with FM were unable to identify any problem at baseline (10% compared to 1%). The PET score improved from 14.9 to 11.3 (p = 0.0001) in patients with AS but did not change from 21.8 to 21.1 (p = 0.24) in patients with FM. Construct validity testing of the PET score showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlations with AIMS, utilities, SIP, HAQ, pain, stiffness, and patient's global health in both groups of patients (r varying from 0.22 to 0.66). By multiple regression pain explained 29% of the variance in PET scores among patients with AS. In FM patient global assessment accounted for 39% of total variance of PET scores, whereas pain explained another 15%. Changes in PET scores correlated significantly (p < 0.05) with changes in AIMS, utilities, pain, stiffness, and patient global health in both AS and FM (r varying from 0.22 to 0.51). Some 6% of the variance in changes in PET scores was explained by changes in pain in patients with AS and 35% by changes in pain and subjective health in patients with FM. Assessment of sensitivity to change revealed that efficiency of the PET score was 0.6 in patients with AS and 0.09 in those with FM. Compared to other outcomes this was reasonable in patients with AS but low in those with FM. CONCLUSION: Obtaining patient priorities was generally feasible. In both groups of patients construct validity of the PET questionnaire was satisfactory. The PET was much more sensitive to change in patients with AS than in patients with FM.

Adolescent↗