Repository hosted by TU Delft Library

A method for modeling the relationship of polychotomous health ratings with predictors such as area characteristics, the distance to a source of environmental contamination, or exposure to environmental pollutants is presented. The model combines elements of grouped regression and multilevel analysis. The statistical model describes the entire response distribution as a function of the predictors so that any measure that summarizes this distribution can be calculated from the model. With the model, polychotomous health ratings can be used, and there is no need for a priori dichotomizing such variables which would lead to loss of information. It is described how, according to the model, various measures describing the response distribution are related to the exposure, and the confidence and tolerance intervals for these relationships are presented. Specific attention is given to the incorporation of random factors in the model. The application that here serves as an example, concerns annoyance from transportation noise. Exposure – response relationships obtained with the described method of modeling are presented for aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise

BACKGROUND: The London Handicap Scale (LHS) was found to be a valid and reliable scale for measuring participation restrictions in adults. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the development and assesses the construct-related validity of a Dutch version of the London Handicap Scale (DLHS). METHODS: The DLHS was tested in 798 adults (mean age: 50.7 years, SD=14.5, range 16 to 85) and validated with the 'Impact on Participation and Autonomy' (IPA) questionnaire, the Dutch version of the EQ-5D and questions concerning comorbidity and use of medical devices. The study population consisted of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), epilepsy, laryngectomy and multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Feasibility was satisfactory. Large correlations (ρ > 0.6) for the DLHS sum score were found with the IPA subscales 'autonomy outdoors', 'perceiving problems', 'family role', autonomy indoors', 'work and education' and with the EQ-5D. The DLHS sum score differs significantly between subgroups based on the number of chronic diseases, number of medical devices and self-reported burden of disease or handicap (p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this evaluation the questionnaire seems feasible and valid for assessing differences in level of participation between subgroups of chronically ill or disabled persons in the Netherlands.

The use of the Gibbs sampler with fully conditionally specified models, where the distribution of each variable given the other variables is the starting point, has become a popular method to create imputations in incomplete multivariate data. The theoretical weakness of this approach is that the specified conditional densities can be incompatible, and therefore the stationary distribution to which the Gibbs sampler attempts to converge may not exist. This study investigates practical consequences of this problem by means of simulation. Missing data are created under four different missing data mechanisms. Attention is given to the statistical behavior under compatible and incompatible models. The results indicate that multiple imputation produces essentially unbiased estimates with appropriate coverage in the simple cases investigated, even for the incompatible models. Of particular interest is that these results were produced using only five Gibbs iterations starting from a simple draw from observed marginal distributions. It thus appears that, despite the theoretical weaknesses, the actual performance of conditional model specification for multivariate imputation can be quite good, and therefore deserves further study. © 2006 Taylor & Francis.

Objective. As part of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project, this study aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) How do European citizens perceive the quality of primary health care provided for children? And 2) What are their priorities with respect to quality assessment of primary health care aimed at satisfying children’s needs? Methods. Nine potential attributes of quality of primary care were operationalized in 40 quality aspects. An online survey was used to elicit opinions in a representative sample of citizens of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Data collection comprised: background characteristics; perceived quality of primary health care for children; and priority setting of quality aspects. Descriptive analysis was performed and differences between groups were tested using Chi-Square test and ANOVA. Results. Valid results were obtained from 2403 respondents. Mean satisfaction with quality of primary care ranged from 5.5 (Poland) to 7.2 (Spain). On average, between 56% (Poland) and 70% (Netherlands) of respondents had a positive perception of the primary health care system for children in their country. The ability of a child to limit their parents’ access to the child’s medical records was judged most negatively in all countries (average agreement score 28%, range 12–36%). The right of a child to a confidential consultation was judged most differently between countries (average agreement score 61%, range 40–75%). Overall top-10 priorities in ensuring high quality primary care were: timeliness (accessibility); skills/competences, management, facilities (appropriateness); no costs (affordability); information, dignity/respect (continuity); and swift referrals, collaboration (coordination). Discussion. Between countries, significant differences exist in the perceived quality of primary care and priorities with regard to quality assessment. Taking into account the citizens’ perspective in decision-making means that aspects with low perceived quality that are highly prioritizedwarrant further action.

Objective To determine the effectiveness of helmet therapy for positional skull deformation compared with the natural course of the condition in infants aged 5-6 months.Design Pragmatic, single blinded, randomised controlled trial (HEADS, HElmet therapy Assessment in Deformed Skulls) nested in a prospective cohort study. Setting 29 paediatric physiotherapy practices; helmet therapy was administered at four specialised centres. Participants 84 infants aged 5 to 6 months with moderate to severe skull deformation, who were born after 36 weeks of gestation and had no muscular torticollis, craniosynostosis, or dysmorphic features. Participants were randomly assigned to helmet therapy (n=42) or to natural course of the condition (n=42) according to a randomisation plan with blocks of eight. Interventions Six months of helmet therapy compared with the natural course of skull deformation. In both trial arms parents were asked to avoid any (additional) treatment for the skull deformation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in skull shape from baseline to 24 months of age assessed using plagiocephalometry (anthropometric measurement instrument). Change scores for plagiocephaly (oblique diameter difference index) and brachycephaly (cranioproportional index) were each included in an analysis of covariance, using baseline values as the covariate. Secondary outcomes were ear deviation, facial asymmetry, occipital lift, and motor development in the infant, quality of life (infant and parent measures), and parental satisfaction and anxiety. Baseline measurements were performed in infants aged between 5 and 6 months, with follow-up measurements at 8, 12, and 24 months. Primary outcome assessment at 24 months was blinded. Results The change score for both plagiocephaly and brachycephaly was equal between the helmet therapy and natural course groups, with a mean difference of −0.2 (95% confidence interval −1.6 to 1.2, P=0.80) and 0.2 (−1.7 to 2.2, P=0.81), respectively. Full recovery was achieved in 10 of 39 (26%) participants in the helmet therapy group and 9 of 40 (23%) participants in the natural course group (odds ratio 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 3.3, P=0.74). All parents reported one or more side effects. Conclusions Based on the equal effectiveness of helmet therapy and skull deformation following its natural course, high prevalence of side effects, and high costs associated with helmet therapy, we discourage the use of a helmet as a standard treatment for healthy infants with moderate to severe skull deformation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18473161.

Purpose. Helmet therapy is regularly prescribed in infants with positional skull deformation. Evidence on the effectiveness is lacking, which complicates decision making. This study aims to assess the relation between parents’ decision for treatment of skull deformation in their infant and their level of anxiety, decisional conflict, expectations of treatment effect, perceived severity of deformation and perceived side effects. Methods. Parents of 5-month-old infants with skull deformation were invited to participate in a survey. Data collection included background characteristics, anthropometric assessment, parent-reported outcomes, decision for treatment (helmet therapy or awaiting natural course), decisional conflict scale and questions about perceived (side) effects of helmet therapy. Factors significantly correlated with treatment decision (p < 0.1) were tested in a multiple logistic regression analysis. Results. The results of 186 respondents were included in the analysis. Parental satisfaction with their infant’s head shape (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.2; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 0.4), expected effect of helmet therapy compared to natural course (aOR 13.4; 95 % CI 5.0 to 36.1) and decision uncertainty (aOR 1.0; 95 % CI 0.9 to 1.0; p = .03) were related to the decision for helmet therapy in infants with skull deformation. Conclusion. With the outcomes of this study, we can better understand parental decision-making for elective ‘normalizing’ treatments in children, such as helmet therapy in infants with skull deformation. Health care professionals should address the parents’ perception of the severity of skull deformation and their expectations of helmet therapy. Furthermore, they can support parents in decision-making by balancing medical information with parents’ expectations, values and beliefs.

Introduction: This paper describes the development and initial psychometric evaluation of the Handicap Scale for Children (HSC). This questionnaire is based on the London Handicap Scale (LHS), a valid and reliable utility instrument for measuring social participation in adults. Methods: A multidisciplinary research group was involved in developing the HSC. The questionnaire was tested in 114 children with a chronic disease and 239 healthy children in the 8-18 age range. Relating the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3) attributes to corresponding HSC scores tested the assumption that a negative health status would lead to participation problems. Results: Questionnaire development resulted in a five-dimension questionnaire: mobility, physical independence, daily activities, social integration and orientation. Each dimension included one item with a six-point response scale. A higher score indicates greater handicap. Feasibility testing with 10 children showed that none of the children experienced difficulties in filling in the questionnaire. Conceptual validity, measured by correlations between the dimensions of the HSC and HUI3, was satisfactory. As expected, moderate correlation coefficients between predefined pairs of HUI and HSC attributes were found; other correlation coefficients were low. Criterion validity was also satisfactory, as shown by large differences between the healthy and the chronically ill group and by several criteria within the chronically ill group. Conclusion: Based on this initial evaluation, the questionnaire seems feasible and valid for use with children in the age range 8-18 years. © 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.

Background The Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project – www.childhealthservicemodels.eu – is a Horizon 2020 Research Project which aims to describe and appraise various models of primary child health care in Europe – including well child clinics and school and adolescent health services - and make recommendations as to optimal features of provision of child health care. Aims To provide insight in the structure, process and outcomes of systems of primary child health care in EU countries To review the primary child health care systems from the perspective of children, adults (parents) and expert stakeholders. Program Four short presentation (about 40 minutes) Young people: children’s experiences with primary child health care collected through narrative in-depth interviews (Manna Alma). Communication and relationships with health care professionals play a pivotal role for children in terms of what is good about primary care and what they felt needs to be improved. Adults: a survey of public experiences and priorities with regard to primary care for children (Magda Boere-Boonekamp/Janine van Til/Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn). Between countries, significant differences exist in the citizens’ perceived quality of primary care and priorities. Country experts: data provided by country agents on school and adolescent health services (Danielle Jansen). This presentation will address the challenges experienced by the country experts in answering questions about national policies regarding primary care. Stakeholders: views of policy makers, health care professionals, scientist and end-users (Eline Vlasblom/Paul Kocken/Menno Reijneveld). Improvements to the child primary healthcare system can be made, but perceived barriers are the current healthcare system and service provision in the EU countries. Plenary discussion (about 50 minutes) Statements that exemplify the conditions for good system components of child primary care will be the center of the plenary discussion. The audience will be asked to form an opinion on the following questions: What is your opinion on changing the primary child healthcare system in your country? What has to be changed in order to optimize the primary child healthcare system? What are quick wins? We will conclude with recommendations for future models of primary child health care.