ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0929-436X
Current Organisation
University of Manchester
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 16-05-2015
DOI: 10.1093/NDT/GFV209
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 28-06-2021
Abstract: The study sought to identify smartphone apps that support hand hygiene practice and to assess their content, technical and functional features, and quality. A secondary objective was to make design and research recommendations for future apps. We searched the UK Google Play and Apple App stores for hand hygiene smartphone apps aimed at adults. Information regarding content, technical and functional features was extracted and summarized. Two raters evaluated each app, using the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics functionality score and the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). A total of 668 apps were identified, with 90 meeting the inclusion criteria. Most (96%) were free to download. The majority (78%) intended to educate or inform or remind users to hand wash (69%), using behavior change techniques such as personalization and prompting practice. Only 20% and 4% named a best practice guideline or had expert involvement in development, respectively. Innovative means of engagement were used in 42% (eg, virtual or augmented reality or geolocation-based reminders). Apps included an average of 2.4 out of 10 of the IMS functionality criteria (range, 0-8). The mean MARS score was 3.2 ± 0.5 out of 5, and 68% had a minimum acceptability score of 3. Two had been tested or trialed. Although many hand hygiene apps exist, few provide content on best practice. Many did not meet the minimum acceptability criterion for quality or were formally trialed or tested. Research should assess the feasibility and effectiveness of hand hygiene apps (especially within healthcare settings), including when and how they “work.” We recommend that future apps to support hand hygiene practice are developed with infection prevention and control experts and align with best practice. Robust research is needed to determine which innovative methods of engagement create “sticky” apps.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 29-09-2014
DOI: 10.1093/NDT/GFT407
Abstract: The prime mission of European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) is to improve the outcome of patients with kidney disease in a sustainable way through enhancing the availability of the knowledge on the management of these patients in a format that stimulates its use in clinical practice in Europe. A key activity is to produce clinical practice guidelines to help clinicians make the healthcare decisions they face. To further improve the quality and validity of its clinical practice guidelines, ERBP has revised its guideline development process. The present document outlines the principles of ERBP's 10-step approach. Important features include standard procedures for selecting topics, for assembling the guideline development group, for choosing and formulating questions, for finding, appraising and summarizing the evidence, for generating recommendations, for preparing reports and organizing peer review. ERBP has adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for rating the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations and has addressed implementation in the development process by integrating the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal tool. Ultimately, it is anticipated that these changes will not only further improve the quality of the guideline development process, but also enhance the quality of care and improve outcomes of patients with kidney disease across Europe.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 26-04-2019
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 09-09-2014
DOI: 10.1093/NDT/GFU288
Abstract: Worldwide, several bodies produce renal guidelines, potentially leading to duplication of effort while other topics may remain uncovered. A collaborative work plan could improve efficiency and impact, but requires a common approved methodology. The aim of this study was to identify organizational and methodological similarities and differences among seven major renal guideline bodies to identify methodological barriers to a collaborative effort. An electronic 62-item survey with questions based on the Institute of Medicine standards for guidelines was completed by representatives of seven major organizations producing renal guidelines: the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO), Kidney Health Australia-Caring for Australians with Renal Insufficiency (KHA-CARI), Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI), Sociedad Latino-Americano de Nefrologia e Hipertension (SLANH) and United Kingdom Renal Association (UK-RA). Five of the seven groups conduct systematic searches for evidence, two include detailed critical appraisal and all use the GRADE framework. Five have public review of the guideline draft. Guidelines are updated as new evidence comes up in all, and/or after a specified time frame has passed (N = 3). Commentaries or position statements on guidelines published by other groups are produced by five, with the ADAPTE framework (N = 1) and the AGREEII (N = 2) used by some. Funding is from their parent organizations (N = 5) or directly from industry (N = 2). None allow funders to influence topic selection or guideline content. The budgets to develop a full guideline vary from $2000 to $500 000. Guideline development groups vary in size from <5 (N = 1) to 13-20 persons (N = 3). Three explicitly seek patient perspectives, for ex le, by involving patients in the scoping process, and four incorporate health economic considerations. All provide training in methodology for guideline development groups and six make their methods public. All try to avoid overlapping topics already planned or published by others. There is no common conflict of interest policy. Overall, there is considerable commonality in methods and approaches in renal guideline development by the different organizations, although some procedural differences remain. As the financial and human resource costs of guideline production are high, a collaborative approach is required to maximize impact and develop a sustainable work plan. Coming to consensus on methods and procedures is the first step and appears feasible.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 2016
DOI: 10.1186/S40697-016-0125-6
Abstract: Current guidelines favor fistulas over catheters as vascular access. Yet, the observational literature comparing fistulas to catheters has important limitations and biases that may be difficult to overcome in the absence of randomization. However, it is not clear if physicians would be willing to participate in a clinical trial comparing fistulas to catheters. We also sought to elicit participants' opinions on willingness to participate in a future trial regarding catheters and fistulas. We created a three-part survey consisting of 19 questions. We collected demographic information, respondents' knowledge of the vascular access literature, appropriateness of current guideline recommendations, and their willingness to participate in a future trial. Participants were recruited from Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Participants include physicians and trainees who are involved in the care of end-stage renal disease patients requiring vascular access. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics of respondents according to geographic location. We used logistic regression to model willingness to participate in a future trial. We surveyed nephrologists from Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to assess their willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing fistulas to catheters in incident hemodialysis patients. Our results show that in Canada, 86 % of respondents were willing to participate in a trial (32 % in all patients 54 % only in patients at high risk of primary failure). In Europe and Australia/New Zealand, the willingness to participate in a trial that included all patients was lower (28 % in Europe 25 % in Australia/New Zealand), as was a trial that included patients at high risk of primary failure (38 % in Europe 39 % in Australia/New Zealand). Nephrologists who have been in practice for a few years, saw a larger volume of patients, or self-identified as experts in vascular access literature were more likely to participate in a trial. (Continued on next page) Survey distribution was limited to vascular access experts in participating European countries and ultimately led to a discrepancy in numbers of European to non-European respondents overall. Canadian views are likely over-represented in the overall outcomes. Our survey results suggest that nephrologists believe there is equipoise surrounding the optimal vascular access strategy and that a randomized controlled study should be undertaken, but restricted to those in iduals with a high risk of primary fistula failure.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Sabine van der Veer.