Background: The Dutch multidisciplinary sciatica guideline recommends that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and the patient together decide on surgical or prolonged conservative treatment (shared decision making [SDM]). Despite this recommendation, SDM is not yet integrated in sciatica care. Existing literature concerning barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation mainly focuses on one discipline only, whereas multidisciplinary care may involve other barriers and facilitators, or make these more complex for both professionals and patients. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by patients and professionals for SDM implementation in multidisciplinary sciatica care.Methods: We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons) and three focus groups among patients (six to eight per group). The interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were classified according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The software package Atlas.ti 7.0 was used for analysis.Results: Professionals reported 53 barriers and 5 facilitators, and patients 35 barriers and 18 facilitators for SDM in sciatica care. Professionals perceived most barriers at the level of the organizational context, and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Patients reported most barriers and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Several barriers and facilitators correspond with barriers and facilitators found in the literature (e.g., lack of time, motivation) but also new barriers and facilitators were identified. Many of these new barriers mentioned by both professionals and patients were related to the multidisciplinary setting, such as lack of visibility, lack of trust in expertise of other disciplines, and lack of communication between disciplines.Conclusions: This study identified barriers and facilitators for SDM in the multidisciplinary sciatica setting, by both professionals and patients. It is clear that more barriers than facilitators are perceived for implementation of SDM in sciatica care. Newly identified barriers and facilitators are related to the multidisciplinary care setting. Therefore, an effective implementation strategy of SDM in a multidisciplinary setting such as in sciatica care should focus on these barriers and facilitators.

@en

Purpose of this study was to assess whether living (LD) and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplant recipients differ in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue and societal participation, depending on time since transplantation and after adjustment for clinical and demographic variables. A questionnaire study was performed among 309 LD and 226 DD recipients (response rate 74% and 61%) transplanted between 1997 and 2009. After adjustment for age, sex, and education, LD recipients transplanted less than or equal to five yr ago experienced better HRQoL than DD recipients on the domains' role limitations due to physical problems, general health perception, and on the physical component summary score (all p < 0.05) and a better societal participation (all subscales, p < 0.05). No differences were found in the mental health domains. The LD recipients also had better renal clearance than DD recipients (62.1 vs. 55.9 mL/min, p = 0.01). After additional adjustment for renal clearance, the differences in HRQoL and societal participation between LD and DD recipients remained. No differences were found in recipients transplanted more than five yr ago. We conclude that LD recipients on average have better HRQoL and societal participation than DD recipients, in the first years after transplantation.

@en

Background: Sciatica is a common condition worldwide that is characterized by radiating leg pain and regularly caused by a herniated disc with nerve root compression. Sciatica patients with persisting leg pain after six to eight weeks were found to have similar clinical outcomes and associated costs after prolonged conservative treatment or surgery at one year follow-up. Guidelines recommend that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and patients jointly decide about treatment options, so-called interprofessional shared decision making (SDM). However, there are strong indications that SDM for sciatica patients is not integrated in daily practice. We designed a study aiming to explore the barriers and facilitators associated with the everyday embedding of SDM for sciatica patients. All related relevant professionals and patients are involved to develop a tailored strategy to implement SDM for sciatica patients.Methods: The study consists of two phases: identification of barriers and facilitators and development of an implementation strategy. First, barriers and facilitators are explored using semi-structured interviews among eight professionals of each (para)medical discipline involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons). In addition, three focus groups will be conducted among patients. Second, the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked using a questionnaire among a representative Dutch sample of 200 GPs, 200 physical therapists, 200 neurologists, all 124 neurosurgeons, 200 orthopedic surgeons, and 100 patients. A tailored team-based implementation strategy will be developed based on the results of the first phase using the principles of intervention mapping and an expert panel.Discussion: Little is known about effective strategies to increase the uptake of SDM. Most implementation strategies only target a single discipline, whereas multiple disciplines are involved in SDM among sciatica patients. The results of this study can be used as an example for implementing SDM in other patient groups receiving multidisciplinary complex care (e.g., elderly) and can be generalized to other countries with similar context, thereby contributing to a worldwide increase of SDM in preference sensitive choices.@en

Health related quality of life (HRQoL) of living kidney donors on average is good, but some donors experience a low HRQoL after donation. This study assessed the prevalence of reduced HRQoL and explored associations with pre- and post-donation variables. 316 donors (response rate 74%) who donated a kidney between 1997 and 2009 filled in a questionnaire. HRQoL was measured using the Short-Form 36; fatigue using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory; societal participation using the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation- Participation. Donors on average had better HRQoL than the general population. However, 12% had a reduced physical (PCS) and 18% a reduced mental (MCS) HRQoL. Donors with reduced HRQoL reported greater fatigue (P < 0.01), lower societal participation (P < 0.01) and showed a trend towards statistical significance in experiencing more donor-recipient relationship changes (P = 0.07). Prior to donation, donors with reduced PCS had a higher BMI (P < 0.05) and more often smoked (P < 0.05). Donors with reduced MCS had higher expectations (P < 0.05). Reduced HRQoL is associated with higher BMI, smoking and higher expectations prior to donation. These results may be used to develop a screening instrument to select donors at high risk for reduced HRQoL.

@en

Background: Limited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced. Methods. We conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts. Results: Most deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donors health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p=0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced. Conclusion: Expected relationship changes and concerns about the donors health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group.

@en