1
|
Shaw E, Nunns M, Spicer SG, Lawal H, Briscoe S, Melendez‐Torres GJ, Garside R, Liabo K, Coon JT. What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work-related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews. CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2024; 20:e1412. [PMID: 38751859 PMCID: PMC11094349 DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/18/2024]
Abstract
Background In the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work-related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH-trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi-disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non-healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return-to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi-disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work-related outcomes. Objectives The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work-related outcomes. Search Methods In June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023. Selection Criteria Systematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi-disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non-clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the 'High' and 'Medium' reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level. Data Collection and Analysis Summary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as 'High' or 'Medium' relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of 'High' and 'Medium' relevance was imported into EPPI-Mapper software to create an EGM. Stakeholder Involvement We worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it. Main Results We identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically-Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work-related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review. Authors’ Conclusions This EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary, workplace-based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth Shaw
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - Michael Nunns
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - Stuart G. Spicer
- NIHR Applied Research CollaborationUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK
| | - Hassanat Lawal
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - Simon Briscoe
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - G. J. Melendez‐Torres
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - Ruth Garside
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - Kristin Liabo
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| | - Jo Thompson Coon
- Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
de Boer AG, Tamminga SJ, Boschman JS, Hoving JL. Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024; 3:CD007569. [PMID: 38441440 PMCID: PMC10913845 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd007569.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL. MAIN RESULTS We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Gem de Boer
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sietske J Tamminga
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Julitta S Boschman
- Cochrane Work, Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jan L Hoving
- Cochrane Work, Department of Public and Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chan RJ, Milch VE, Crawford-Williams F, Agbejule OA, Joseph R, Johal J, Dick N, Wallen MP, Ratcliffe J, Agarwal A, Nekhlyudov L, Tieu M, Al-Momani M, Turnbull S, Sathiaraj R, Keefe D, Hart NH. Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature. CA Cancer J Clin 2023; 73:565-589. [PMID: 37358040 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 06/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raymond J Chan
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Vivienne E Milch
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Cancer Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Fiona Crawford-Williams
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Oluwaseyifunmi Andi Agbejule
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Ria Joseph
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Jolyn Johal
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Narayanee Dick
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Matthew P Wallen
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Anupriya Agarwal
- Cancer Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Larissa Nekhlyudov
- Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Matthew Tieu
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Dorothy Keefe
- Cancer Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Nicolas H Hart
- Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Cancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Institute for Health Research, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Human Performance Research Centre, Innovative Solutions for Well-being and Health (INSIGHT) Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Edney LC, Roseleur J, Gray J, Koczwara B, Karnon J. Mapping a decade of interventions to address the supportive care needs of individuals living with or beyond cancer: a scoping review of reviews. Support Care Cancer 2022; 30:3793-3804. [PMID: 35029770 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06713-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2021] [Accepted: 11/18/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Individuals diagnosed with cancer have a range of supportive care needs that are often unmet despite substantial evidence supporting interventions to address them. Addressing this knowledge-translation gap represents a significant opportunity to improve health outcomes. A scoping review of reviews was conducted to map the breadth of evidence for interventions, highlighting those with an existing evidence base, as well as those requiring further research. METHODS Systematic or meta-analytic reviews that examined interventions targeting supportive care needs of adults and children with cancer published between 2009 and 2019 were identified via searches in Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane. RESULTS Five hundred fifty-one systematic reviews, including 250 meta-analyses, of interventions addressing supportive care needs, were included. Most reviews focused on interventions to address the physical and psychosocial needs of individuals with few reviews identified to address practical needs. Interventions using mental health therapies and physical activity were most commonly used to address all supportive care needs, followed by the use of pharmaceutical and medical devices, complementary and alternative therapies, information and education resources, dietary information and specific spirituality and return-to-work interventions. CONCLUSION This scoping review of reviews presents the first broad overview of the literature addressing the supportive care needs of people living with or beyond cancer. It provides a database that health service providers can search to identify appropriate interventions. Results highlight specific research gaps, particularly for practical needs, where reviews are needed. It highlights where a substantial evidence base exists that researchers and policy-makers can consider when implementing interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Catherine Edney
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Jacqueline Roseleur
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
| | - Jodi Gray
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Bogda Koczwara
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.,Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Jonathan Karnon
- Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Marques ML, Alunno A, Boonen A, Ter Wee MM, Falzon L, Ramiro S, Putrik P. Methodological aspects of design, analysis and reporting of studies with work participation as an outcome domain in patients with inflammatory arthritis: results of two systematic literature reviews informing EULAR points to consider. RMD Open 2021; 7:rmdopen-2020-001522. [PMID: 33542048 PMCID: PMC7868290 DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2020] [Revised: 01/06/2021] [Accepted: 01/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To summarise the methodological aspects in studies with work participation (WP) as outcome domain in inflammatory arthritis (IA) and other chronic diseases. Methods Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in key electronic databases (2014–2019): search 1 focused on longitudinal prospective studies in IA and search 2 on SLRs in other chronic diseases. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data covering pre-defined methodological areas. Results In total, 58 studies in IA (22 randomised controlled trials, 36 longitudinal observational studies) and 24 SLRs in other chronic diseases were included. WP was the primary outcome in 26/58 (45%) studies. The methodological aspects least accounted for in IA studies were as follows (proportions of studies positively adhering to the topic are shown): aligning the studied population (16/58 (28%)) and sample size calculation (8/58 (14%)) with the work-related study objective; attribution of WP to overall health (28/58 (48%)); accounting for skewness of presenteeism/sick leave (10/52 (19%)); accounting for work-related contextual factors (25/58 (43%)); reporting attrition and its reasons (1/58 (2%)); reporting both aggregated results and proportions of individuals reaching predefined meaningful change or state (11/58 (16%)). SLRs in other chronic diseases confirmed heterogeneity and methodological flaws identified in IA studies without identifying new issues. Conclusion High methodological heterogeneity was observed in studies with WP as outcome domain. Consensus around various methodological aspects specific to WP studies is needed to improve quality of future studies. This review informs the EULAR Points to Consider for conducting and reporting studies with WP as an outcome in IA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Lucy Marques
- Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands .,Rheumatology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitario de Coimbra EPE, Coimbra, Portugal
| | - Alessia Alunno
- Rheumatology Unit, University of Perugia Department of Medicine, Perugia, Umbria, Italy
| | - Annelies Boonen
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.,Department of Health Services Research, Universiteit Maastricht Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands
| | - Marieke M Ter Wee
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Rheumatology and immunology, AI&I, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Louise Falzon
- Center for Personalized Health, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, New York, New York, USA
| | - Sofia Ramiro
- Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.,Rheumatology, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, Limburg, The Netherlands
| | - Polina Putrik
- Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.,Department of Health Services Research, Universiteit Maastricht Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|