<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Wensing, M.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/32502/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Knowledge implementation in healthcare practice: A view from the Netherlands (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34919/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>In this contribution we discuss some pertinent issues regarding knowledge implementation in the Netherlands, focusing on the largest public funding agency for health research in the Netherlands (ZonMw). The commentary is based on a report, which includes a structured analysis of 79 projects funded by ZonMW, a survey of published implementation research covering 141 systematic reviews, and qualitative study of the implementation infrastructure in the Netherlands. Five themes were identified. First, the term 'knowledge implementation' may be better replaced by more specific terms in some situations. Second, contextual factors need to be taken more systematically into account when planning and evaluating implementation programs. Third, knowledge may change when implemented and this needs to be considered in projects. Fourth, we observed that implementation has developed into a specific world, separated from both healthcare practice and scientific research. It is important to guard against the risk of isolation from the practical and societal needs that the field is meant to address. Finally, we suggest that the strong focus on 'doing projects' and limited opportunities for structural funding may reduce substantial improvement in the field. Many good activities are underway, but the policies regarding knowledge implementation appear to need some adjustment. In its policy plan for the coming years, ZonMW has partly taken up the lessons from our advisory report.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>How do Dutch general practitioners diagnose children's urinary tract infections? (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/24774/</link>
      <pubDate>2009-06-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Objective To study which tests general practitioners used to diagnose a urinary tract infection (UTI) in children and which patient characteristics were associated with test choice. Design Retrospective chart review on the diagnosis of UTIs in children in Dutch general practices who were diagnosed as having a UTI. A total of 49 general practices participated in the study, and provided information on 148 children aged 0-12 years old. Results The nitrite test, which is recommended as first step, was performed in 87% of the children during the first contact. Less than 30% of the children had a dipslide and 37% a cultured urine. About half of all children with a UTI diagnosis had a follow-up contact in general practice, and an average of 83% of these children had their urine tested. The recommended test, a dipslide, was performed in 26% of the children with a follow-up contact. Patient age and UTI history were associated with choice of test. Conclusions The diagnostic procedures for UTIs in children in general practices could be improved, with focus on the importance of an accurate UTI diagnosis in all children, and explaining which tests should be performed and what the test results mean. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Parents' awareness of and knowledge about young children's urinary tract infections (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36210/</link>
      <pubDate>2007-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Objective: To provide insight into parents' awareness of and knowledge about urinary tract infections (UTIs) in young children. Methods: Twenty interviews with parents who had a child recently diagnosed with a UTI were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and qualitatively analysed. Results: Most parents knew the typical symptoms related to UTI. But, according to the parents, neither they nor all general practitioners (GPs) thought of a UTI in case of atypical symptoms. The awareness that UTI can be a serious illness usually came to parents later, partly because health care workers often did not explicitly mention this. According to the parents, health care workers should be more aware of UTIs in children. Parents felt that health education or mass screening might not be desirable because it would increase anxiety or would be perceived as not relevant. Conclusion: Parents could not consistently recognise UTI in their children and were most times unaware of the possible consequences of a UTI. Nevertheless, parents were sceptical about health education and mass screening. Practice implications: There seems little scope for health education addressed at parents or screening for UTI in young children. Instead, physicians and nurses should be alert for the possibility of UTIs in young children, and more information should be given once a UTI is diagnosed. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Management of children's urinary tract infections in Dutch family practice: A cohort study (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/36921/</link>
      <pubDate>2007-03-26T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Background. Optimal clinical management of childhood urinary tract infections (UTI) potentiates long-term positive health effects. Insight into the quality of care in Dutch family practices for UTIs was limited, particularly regarding observation periods of more than a year. Our aim was to describe the clinical management of young children's UTIs in Dutch primary care and to compare this to the national guideline recommendations. Methods. In this cohort study, all 0 to 6-year-old children with a diagnosed UTI in 2001 were identified within the Netherlands Information Network of General Practitioners (LINH), which comprises 120 practices. From the Dutch guideline on urinary tract infections, seven indicators were derived, on prescription, follow-up, and referral. Results. Of the 284 children with UTI who could be followed for three years, 183 (64%) were registered to have had one cystitis episode, 52 (18%) had two episodes, and 43 (15%) had three or more episodes. Another six children were registered to have had one or two episodes of acute pyelonephritis. Overall, antibiotics were prescribed for 66% of the children having had ≤ 3 cystitis episodes, two-thirds of whom received the antibiotics of first choice. About 30% of all episodes were followed up in general practice. Thirty-eight children were referred (14%), mostly to a paediatrician (76%). Less than one-third of the children who should have been referred was actually referred. Conclusion. Treatment of childhood UTIs in Dutch family practice should be improved with respect to prescription, follow-up, and referral. Quality improvement should address the low incidence of urinary tract infections in children in family practice. </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>