In a health care system based on managed competition, health insurers negotiate on quality and price with care providers and are allowed to offer restrictive health plans. It is crucial that enrolees who need care choose restrictive health plans, as otherwise health insurers cannot channel patients to contracted providers and they will lose their bargaining power in negotiations with providers. We aim to explain enrolees’ choice of a restrictive health plan in exchange for a lower premium. In 2014 an online survey with an experimental design was conducted on members of an access panel (response 78%; n=3,417). Results showed 37.4% of respondents willing to choose a restrictive health plan in exchange for a lower premium. This fell to 22% when the restrictive health plan also included a longer travelling time. Enrolees who choose a restrictive health plan are younger and healthier, or on lower incomes, than those preferring a non-restrictive one. This means that enrolees who use care will be unlikely to choose a restrictive health plan and, therefore, health insurers will not be able to channel them to contracted care providers. This undermines the goals of the health care system based on managed competition.

Background: Social engagement and depression are important outcomes for residents with dementia in long-term care. However, it is still largely unclear which differences in social engagement and depression exist in residents of various long-term care settings and how these differences may be explained. This study investigated the relationship between social engagement and depressive symptoms in long-term care dementia units, and studied whether differences in social engagement and depressive symptoms between units can be ascribed to the composition of the resident population or to differences in type of care setting.

Methods: Thirty-seven long-term care units for residents with dementia in nursing- and residential homes in the Netherlands participated in the study. Social engagement and depressive symptoms were measured for 502 residents with the Minimum Data Set of the Resident Assessment Instrument. Results were analyzed using multilevel analysis.

Results: Residents of psychogeriatric units in nursing homes experienced low social engagement. Depressive symptoms were most often found in residents of psychogeriatric units in residential homes. Multilevel analyses showed that social engagement and depressive symptoms correlated moderately on the level of the units. This correlation disappeared when the characteristics of residents were taken into account.

Conclusions: Social engagement and depressive symptoms are influenced not only by individual characteristics but also by the type of care setting in which residents live. However, in this study social engagement and depressive symptoms were not strongly related to each other, implying that separate interventions are needed to improve both outcomes.

Background. Depression is highly co-morbid with both psychiatric and chronic somatic disease. These types of co-morbidity have been shown to exert opposite effects on underdiagnosis of depression by general practitioners (GPs). However, past research has not addressed their combined effect on underdiagnosis of depression.

Method. Co-morbidity data on 191 depressed primary-care patients selected by a two-stage sampling procedure were analysed. Diagnoses of major depression and/or dysthymia in the last 12 months were assessed using a standardized psychiatric interview (CIDI) and compared with depression diagnoses registered by GPs in patient contacts during the same period. Presence of psychiatric and chronic somatic co-morbidity was determined using the CIDI and contact registration, respectively.

Results. Regression analysis showed a significant interaction effect between psychiatric and chronic somatic co-morbidity on GPs’ diagnosis of depression, while taking into account the effects of sociodemographic variables, depression severity and number of GP contacts. Subsequent stratified analysis revealed that in patients without chronic somatic co-morbidity, a lower educational level, a less severe depression, and fewer GP contacts all significantly increased the likelihood of not being diagnosed as depressed. In contrast, in patients with chronic somatic co-morbidity, only having no psychiatric co-morbidity significantly decreased the likelihood of receiving a depression diagnosis.

Conclusions. Our results indicate that the effects of psychiatric co-morbidity and other factors on underdiagnosis of depression by GPs differ between depressed patients with and without chronic somatic co-morbidity. Efforts to improve depression diagnosis by GPs seem to require different strategies for depressed patients with and without chronic somatic co-morbidity.

Objectives: Health services research is a typical instance of applied research, meaning that its research findings should contribute to a more evidence-based health policy. A basic assumption for the usefulness of policy research is that it is of good scientific quality, but evaluation of health services research would be incomplete without an assessment of its societal relevance. However, there is no generally accepted framework in which criteria to assess societal relevance are defined.

Methods: In this study, we made an effort to specify criteria and indicators for policy relevance.

Results and Conclusions: In general, we concluded that it is important to define from the start of a research project, what kind of answers are being sought to the questions at hand, who the intended users of these answers will be, and how they can be reached. Furthermore, a productive dialogue between researchers and policy makers is indispensable for remaining in tune with policy thinking. In addition, we specified domains and a list of potential criteria for assessing policy relevance. For the purpose of quality assurance, these criteria have to be integrated into a quality improvement cycle. This means that the societal output of health services research should be related to the aims and missions at the level of projects, programs, and institutes. Furthermore, it is important that consensus is reached about (the weighting of) relevant indicators and that routines are developed for collecting information on these indicators.