Jan De Maeseneer
Ghent University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jan De Maeseneer.
The Lancet | 2013
Norbert Lameire; Arvind Bagga; Dinna N. Cruz; Jan De Maeseneer; Zoltan H. Endre; John A. Kellum; Kathleen D. Liu; Ravindra L. Mehta; Neesh Pannu; Wim Van Biesen; Raymond Vanholder
Despite an increasing incidence of acute kidney injury in both high-income and low-income countries and growing insight into the causes and mechanisms of disease, few preventive and therapeutic options exist. Even small acute changes in kidney function can result in short-term and long-term complications, including chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, and death. Presence of more than one comorbidity results in high severity of illness scores in all medical settings. Development or progression of chronic kidney disease after one or more episode of acute kidney injury could have striking socioeconomic and public health outcomes for all countries. Concerted international action encompassing many medical disciplines is needed to aid early recognition and management of acute kidney injury.
Medical Education | 2002
Filip Lievens; Pol Coetsier; Filip De Fruyt; Jan De Maeseneer
Objectives This study investigates: (1) which personality traits are typical of medical students as compared to other students, and (2) which personality traits predict medical student performance in pre‐clinical years.
The Lancet | 2003
Jan De Maeseneer; Mieke van Driel; Larry A. Green; Chris van Weel
Making evidence from scientific studies available to clinical practice has been expected to directly improve quality of care, but this expectation has not been realised. The notion of quality of care is complex, and quality improvement needs medical, contextual, and policy evidence. In primary care, research is needed that takes into account the specific characteristics of its population and the presentation and prevalence of illness and disease. The context of the doctor-patient encounter plays a major part, and needs better understanding. At the policy level, issues of equity must be addressed. The knowledge base for family practice must be expanded by integration of multiple methods of comprehension, so we can bridge the gap between evidence and practice.
Annals of Family Medicine | 2003
Jan De Maeseneer; Lutgarde De Prins; Christiane Gosset; Jozef Heyerick
BACKGROUND International comparisons of health care systems have shown a relationship at the macro level between a well-structured primary health care plan and lower total health care costs. The objective of this study was to assess whether provider continuity with a family physician is related to lower health care costs using the individual patient as the unit of analysis. METHODS We undertook a study of a stratified sample of patients (age, sex, region, insurance company) for which 2 cohorts were constructed based on the patients’ utilization pattern of family medicine (provider continuity or not). Patient utilization patterns were observed for 2 years. The setting was the Belgian health care system. The participants were 4,134 members of the 2 largest health insurance companies in 2 regions (Aalst and Liège). The main outcome measures were the total health care costs of patients with and without provider continuity with a family physician, controlling for variables known to influence health care utilization (need factors, predisposing factors, enabling factors). RESULTS Bivariate analyses showed that patients who were visiting the same family physician had a lower total cost for medical care. A multivariate linear regression showed that provider continuity with a family physician was one of the most important explanatory variables related to the total health care cost. CONCLUSIONS Provider continuity with a family physician is related to lower total health care costs. This finding brings evidence to the debate on the importance of structured primary health care (with high continuity for family practice) for a cost-effective health policy.
Annals of Family Medicine | 2006
Mieke van Driel; An De Sutter; Myriam Deveugele; Wim Peersman; Christopher Collett Butler; Marc De Meyere; Jan De Maeseneer; Thierry Christiaens
PURPOSE Antibiotics are still overprescribed for self-limiting upper respiratory tract infections such as acute sore throat, and physicians mention patient’s desire for antibiotics as a driving force. We studied patients’ concerns when visiting their family physician for acute sore throat, more specifically the importance they attach to antibiotic treatment and pain relief. METHODS Family physicians in 6 peer groups in Belgium participated in an observational postvisit questionnaire survey. Patients aged 12 years and older making an office visit for acute sore throat were invited to indicate the importance of different reasons for the visit. RESULTS Sixty-eight family physicians provided data from 298 patients. The 3 most frequently endorsed reasons for visiting the physician were examination to establish the cause of the symptoms, pain relief, and information on the course of the disease. Hopes for an antibiotic ranked 11th of 13 items. Patients who considered antibiotics very/rather important valued pain relief significantly more than patients who considered them little/not important (P <.001). Patients who hoped for antibiotics felt more unwell (P <.001), had more faith in antibiotics to speed recovery (P <.001), and were less convinced that sore throat was a self-limiting disease (P <.012). A multivariate model, adjusted for age, sex, and educational status, showed that the desire for pain relief is a strong predictor of the hope to receive a prescription for antibiotics. CONCLUSION Our study suggests that patients with acute sore throat and who hope for antibiotics may in fact want treatment for pain. Trials are needed to test whether exploring patients’ expectations about pain management and offering adequate analgesia can assist physicians in managing sore throats without prescribing antibiotics.
British Journal of General Practice | 2008
Jan De Maeseneer; Chris van Weel; David Egilman; Khaya Mfenyana; Arthur Kaufman; Nelson Sewankambo
Recently we have seen an unprecedented increase of financial support to improve health care in developing countries estimated at 26% between 1997 and 2002, from
BMJ | 2000
Jan De Maeseneer; Ineke Blokland; Sara Willems; Robert Vander Stichele; Filip Meersschaut
6.4 billion to
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity | 2011
Nick Verhaeghe; Jan De Maeseneer; Lea Maes; Cornelis Van Heeringen; Lieven Annemans
8.1 billion.1 While the magnitude of such an investment is a positive development, the vast majority of aid has been allocated towards disease-specific projects (termed ‘vertical programming’) rather than towards more broad-based improvements in population health, such as preventive measures, primary care services, and health workforce development (termed ‘horizontal programming’). For instance, the initiatives of the Bill and Melinda Gates and Clinton Foundations usually focus on specific communicable diseases: 60% address ‘big diseases’ (HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis). Rwanda, for example, with an HIV prevalence rate of 3.1 %2 and an annual health budget of
The Lancet | 2012
Jan De Maeseneer; Richard G. Roberts; Marcelo Marcos Piva Demarzo; Iona Heath; Nelson Sewankambo; Michael Kidd; Chris van Weel; David Egilman; Charles Boelen; Sara Willems
37 million,3 received
The Lancet | 2008
Salman Rawaf; Jan De Maeseneer; Barbara Starfield
187 million since 2003 exclusively for HIV/AIDS. Thirty years ago, in 1978, the Alma-Ata Declaration pointed to the importance of community-oriented comprehensive primary health care for all nations. Improving health required changes in economic, social, and political structures, in addition to access to health care. In this comprehensive or ‘horizontal’ healthcare concept, health care is also a basic human right that requires community participation. Some have argued that the Alma-Ata concepts were unattainable because of the costs and numbers of trained personnel required. From this perspective, a selective disease-oriented approach could address the greatest disease burden in the community in less developed countries.4 The two positions differ both …