Descriptors
Documents disponibles dans cette catégorie (70)
Add the result to your basket Make a suggestion Refine your search Apply to external sourcesExtend search on down-posting(s)
21st Cochrane Colloquium / Oxford [UK] : The Cochrane Collaboration (2013)
21st Cochrane Colloquium
Quebec ; 19-23 September 2013
Languages : English (eng) French (fre)
Descriptors: Classification
W 3 Congresses
Indexation
Congresses ; Decision Making ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Health Care ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Societies, ScientificAbstract: The focus of this year’s Colloquium: Better Knowledge for Better Health|Un meilleur savoir pour une meilleure santé is on how evidence informs health care decisions at every level – from patient to practitioner, to institutional or government policy-maker.
Plenary sessions will feature international experts addressing the following topics:
20 years of better knowledge for better health
Better knowledge for better health: decision-makers’ perspectives
Better knowledge for better health: global health and equity perspectives
The next 20 years of better knowledge
In addition, we will offer special sessions on specific topics, including:
Wikipedia and transferring health information
Patients, evidence production and its use
Evidence for policy-makers
The ‘French Connection’: the work of Cochrane for francophones
Systematic reviews and guideline development
Better Knowledge for Better Health|Un meilleur savoir pour une meilleure santé will commence on Friday, 20 September 2013 with the opening ceremony and first plenary session and end on Monday, 23 September. In addition to an excellent scientific program, we will offer a superb social program with opportunities to network and meet new and existing colleagues from around the world. Please note the Welcome Reception will take place on the evening of Thursday, 19 September.Link for e-copy: http://ccc.cochrane.org/ Format of e-copy: Web site Record link: https://kce.docressources.info/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3627 Copies(0)
Status No copy
ISSN : D/2016/10.273/66 : € 0,00
Etude 2014-06
Languages : French (fre)
Descriptors: Classification
WA 525 Health Administration and Organization - General works
Indexation
2014-06 ; Decision Making ; Decision Support Techniques ; Needs Assessment ; R272Abstract: Dans notre pays comme dans beaucoup d’autres, les décisions de remboursement de médicaments sont prises sans tenir compte explicitement des opinions et préférences des citoyens et des patients. L’INAMI souhaite que cela change ; c’est pourquoi il avait été demandé, en 2014, au Centre Fédéral d’Expertise des Soins de santé (KCE) d’identifier les critères que les citoyens trouvent les plus importants lors de ces décisions. Aujourd’hui, le KCE propose un premier exercice de mise en pratique de ces critères dans la rédaction de la liste des « besoins médicaux non rencontrés ». La méthode développée par le KCE permet d’établir cette liste en tenant explicitement compte des préférences des citoyens et des besoins réels des patients, plutôt que de la baser, comme aujourd’hui, sur les produits en attente dans le pipeline de l’industrie. Avec cette première initative, dont on peut espérer qu’elle sera rapidement élargie à toutes les décisions de remboursement, la Belgique se profile en pionnier de l’implication du citoyen et du patient dans la politique de santé. Cet exercice de participation est donc suivi avec attention dans les autres pays. Contents note: PRÉFACE 1 -- SYNTHÈSE 2 -- 1 CONTEXTE 3 -- 2 OBJECTIF DE CETTE ÉTUDE 5 -- 3 RÉDACTION DE LA LISTE À L’AIDE DE LA MÉTHODE MCDA 6 -- 3.1 DES BESOINS THERAPEUTIQUES ET SOCIETAUX PLUTOT QUE MEDICAUX 6 -- 3.2 CHOIX ET PONDERATION DES CRITERES 7 -- 3.3 CLASSEMENT DES PATHOLOGIES A L’AIDE D’UNE MCDA 10 -- 3.4 POURQUOI COTER/PONDERER SEPAREMENT LES BESOINS THERAPEUTIQUES ET SOCIETAUX ? 12 -- 3.5 DES OUTILS POUR INTRODUIRE LA MÉTHODE MCDA.13 -- 4 LA MÉTHODE MISE A L’ÉPREUVE 13 -- 4.1 PAR QUI ? 13 -- 4.2 COMMENT AVONS-NOUS PROCEDE? 13 -- 4.3 QUELS RESULTATS EN TERMES DE CLASSEMENT ? 14 -- 4.3.1 Pour les besoins thérapeutiques 14 -- 4.3.2 Pour les besoins sociétaux 15 -- 5 CONCLUSION 15 -- 5.1 LA MCDA EST APPLICABLE ET UTILISABLE 15 -- 5.2 LA DEFINITION DES « BESOINS MEDICAUX » SELON L’INAMI DIFFERE DE CELLE DE L’AFMPS 16 -- 5.3 UNE LISTE BASEE SUR LES BESOINS REELS DES PATIENTS ET DE LA SOCIETE PLUTÔT QUE SUR L’OFFRE DE L’INDUSTRIE 16 -- RECOMMANDATIONS 18 -- REFERENCES 20 Link for e-copy: https://doi.org/10.57598/R272BS Format of e-copy: PDF (772 Kb) Record link: https://kce.docressources.info/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3881
ISSN : D/2021/10.273/55 : € 0,00
Languages : English (eng)
Descriptors: Classification
W 85 Patients. Attitude and compliance. Satisfaction
Indexation
2018-11 ; Decision Making ; Decision Making, Shared ; Dementia ; Mental Competency ; Patient Rights ; R349Contents note: 1 INTRODUCTION 13 -- 2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 15 -- 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 17 -- 3.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TOWARDS DECISIONAL CAPACITY, ITS ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT? 17 -- 3.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2: HOW DOES BELGIAN LEGISLATION DEAL WITH DECISIONAL CAPACITY AND ITS ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT? 17 -- 3.3 RESEARCH QUESTION 3: WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF (HEALTH)CARE PROFESSIONALS (IN THE DOMAIN OF DEMENTIA OR MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS) IN THE ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT OF DECISIONAL CAPACITY? 18 -- 3.4 RESEARCH QUESTION 4: WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF THE PERSONS WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS OR DEMENTIA IN THE ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT OF DECISIONAL CAPACITY? 18 -- 4 METHODOLOGY 18 -- 5 DECISIONAL CAPACITY IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE 19 -- 5.1 OBJECTIVE 19 -- 5.2 METHODOLOGY 19 -- 5.2.1 Search strategy 19 -- 5.2.2 Selection criteria for in- or exclusion 19 -- 5.2.3 Data to retrieve / analysis 21 -- 5.3 RESULTS 22 -- 5.3.1 Description of the included articles. 22 -- 5.3.2 Presentation of the findings 22 -- 5.4 PART 1 - TERMINOLOGY 22 -- 5.4.1 Decision-making : a complex phenomenon 22 -- 5.4.2 Decision-making in the medical context 23 -- 5.4.3 Different wordings and four elements 23 -- 5.4.4 Decisional capacity: decision and time specific 30 -- 5.5 PART 2 - PATHOLOGIES AS SOURCE OF DECISIONAL CAPACITY IMPAIRMENT 32 -- 5.5.1 Dementia 33 -- 5.5.2 Brain tumors and other neurological cancers 33 -- 5.5.3 Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders 34 -- 5.5.4 Bipolar and related disorders 35 -- 5.5.5 Depression 35 -- 5.5.6 Autism spectrum disorders 36 -- 5.6 PART 3 - ASSESSING DECISIONAL CAPACITY 37 -- 5.6.1 When is a formal assessment needed? 37 -- 5.6.2 How can an assessment be performed? 41 -- 5.6.3 Who should be designed to be assessor? 51 -- 5.6.4 Which barriers are linked to this assessment? 52 -- 5.6.5 Which facilitators are linked to this assessment? 57 -- 5.6.6 Which recommendations have already been formulated regarding decisional capacity assessment? 65 -- 5.7 PART 4 – IMPACT OF DECISIONAL INCAPACITY: AN ETHICAL QUESTION 69 -- 5.7.1 Discrimination and preconceptions 70 -- 5.7.2 Autonomy versus Paternalism 71 -- 5.7.3 Strategies for improving or maintaining the “decisional capacity” 72 -- 5.8 PART 5 – SUPPORTED DECISION-MAKING PATHWAY 73 -- 5.8.1 Concept 74 -- 5.8.2 When has a supported decision-making pathway to be proposed ? 74 -- 5.8.3 How can a supported decision-making pathway be organized? 75 -- 5.8.4 Who has to be involved in a supported decision-making pathway? 78 -- 5.8.5 Which benefits are described with a supported decision-making pathway? 79 -- 5.8.6 Which barriers are linked to the supported decision-making pathway? 79 -- 5.8.7 Which facilitators are linked to the supported decision-making pathway 82 -- 5.8.8 Which recommendations have already been formulated regarding supported decisionmaking pathway? 84 -- 5.9 PART 6 – ADVANCE DECISION 89 -- 5.9.1 Concepts 89 -- 5.9.2 When should advance decision be proposed? 90 -- 5.9.3 How is advance decision elaborated? 92 -- 5.9.4 Who has to be involved in advance decision pathway? 93 -- 5.9.5 Which benefits are described with advance decision? 95 -- 5.9.6 Which barriers are linked to the advance decision pathway? 97 -- 5.9.7 Which facilitators are linked to the advance decision pathway? 103 -- 5.9.8 Which recommendations have already been formulated regarding advance decision? 107 -- 5.10 PART 7 – SURROGATE DECISION-MAKING PATHWAY: SUBSTITUTED JUDGEMENT AND BEST-INTEREST APPROACH 111 -- 5.10.1 Concepts 111 -- 5.10.2 When a surrogate decision-making pathway should be proposed? 112 -- 5.10.3 How is a surrogate decision-making pathway organized? 113 -- 5.10.4 Who has to be involved in the surrogate decision-making pathway? 116 -- 5.10.5 Which barriers are linked to the surrogate decision-making pathway?. 117 -- 5.10.6 Which facilitators are linked to the surrogate decision-making pathway? 122 -- 5.10.7 Which recommendations have already been formulated regarding surrogate decisionmaking pathway. 125 -- 5.11 LIMITATIONS OF THIS LITERATURE REVIEW 129 -- 5.12 FUTURE RESEARCH 130 -- 5.12.1 Assessment 130 -- 5.12.2 Supported decision-making 131 -- 5.12.3 Advance decision 131 -- 5.12.4 Surrogate decision-making 131 -- 5.12.5 HCPs Training and support 131 -- 6 DECISIONAL CAPACITY AND THE LAW 132 -- 6.1 OBJECTIVE 132 -- 6.2 METHODOLOGY 132 -- 6.3 PART 1 - DECISIONAL CAPACITY: TERMINOLOGY, INTERPRETATION AND ASSESSMENT 133 -- 6.3.1 Terminology 133 -- 6.3.2 The capabilities required to have decisional capacity 134 -- 6.3.3 The assessment of decisional capacity 138 -- 6.4 PART 2 - CONSEQUENCES OF DECISIONAL INCAPACITY: SUBSTITUTE DECISIONMAKING IN THE EXERCISE OF PATIENT’S RIGHTS 149 -- 6.4.1 Who is the substitute decision-maker in charge of exercising patient’s rights? 150 -- 6.4.2 How should a substitute decision-maker decide when exercising patient’s rights? 155 -- 6.4.3 The value of action through which an incapacitated patient appears to oppose treatment. 156 -- 6.4.4 Support in case of reduced decisional capacity? 157 -- 6.5 PART 3 –DECISIONAL CAPACITY IN SPECIFIC LEGISLATION: THE EXAMPLES OF EUTHANASIA, ORGAN DONATION AND MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS 160 -- 6.5.1 Decisional capacity and euthanasia 161 -- 6.5.2 Decisional capacity and experiments on human beings 166 -- 6.5.3 Decisional capacity and organ donation 168 -- 6.6 PART 4 - ADVANCE CARE PLANNING 171 -- 6.6.1 Types of written advance directives 172 -- 6.6.2 Crisis planning for patients with a psychiatric disorder 176 -- 6.7 PART 5 - ADMISSION OF A CARE USER IN A RESIDENTIAL CARE SETTING 178 -- 6.7.1 Admission to a residential care centre (or home replacement environment) 178 -- 6.7.2 Admission in a psychiatric facility 179 -- 6.7.3 Decisional incapacity and day-to-day decisions in a residential care context 183 -- 6.8 PART 6 - THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 185 -- 6.9 LIMITATIONS 194 -- 7 PROFESSIONALS’ PERCEPTIONS RELATED TO DECISIONAL CAPACITY 195 -- 7.1 OBJECTIVE 195 -- 7.2 METHODOLOGY 195 -- 7.2.1 Participants 195 -- 7.2.2 Data collection 196 -- 7.2.3 Data analysis 198 -- 7.3 PART 1 -TERMINOLOGY USED BY PROFESSIONALS AROUND DECISIONAL CAPACITY 199 -- 7.3.1 Many synonyms/terms are used 199 -- 7.4 PART 2 - CONTENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DECISIONAL CAPACITY 201 -- 7.4.1 Composing elements of decisional capacity 201 -- 7.4.2 Decisional capacity, a ‘relative’ concept 202 -- 7.4.3 Decisional capacity is task/context-specific 202 -- 7.5 PART 3 - ASSESSMENT OF DECISIONAL CAPACITY: CHARACTERISTICS, BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS, METHODS AND CONTEXT 203 -- 7.5.1 Focus on the decision-making process, not on the ultimate decision 203 -- 7.5.2 Standards and modalities for assessment depend on the severity of the pathology and the consequences of the decision for the patient’s health 207 -- 7.5.3 Methods for assessing the decisional capacity 207 -- 7.5.4 When (explicitly) evaluating decisional capacity? 210 -- 7.5.5 Particularities to certain types of mental health problems 210 -- 7.5.6 The impact of the personality and the social context of the patient 211 -- 7.5.7 The (possible) balance of power between the patient and physicians 212 -- 7.5.8 Place of the changing identity/values/preferences 212 -- 7.6 PART 4 - SUPPORTING THE PATIENTS IN THEIR DECISIONAL CAPACITY 214 -- 7.7 PART 5 - NEED FOR GUIDANCE FOR PROFESSIONALS 215 -- 7.8 PART 6 - NEED FOR FEEDBACK TO THE PATIENT 216 -- 7.9 PART 7 - ADVANCE CARE PLANNING 217 -- 7.9.1 Opportunities and limits of advance care planning 217 -- 7.9.2 When initiating advance care planning? 218 -- 7.9.3 Who should initiate/be involved in the process? 219 -- 7.10 PART 8 - CRISIS PLANNING FOR PERSONS WITH PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS 221 -- 7.11 LIMITATIONS 221 -- 8 PATIENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON DECISIONAL CAPACITY 222 -- 8.1 OBJECTIVE 222 -- 8.2 METHODOLOGY 222 -- 8.2.2 Data analysis 225 -- 8.2.3 Ethical aspects 225 -- 8.3 RESULTS 226 -- 8.3.1 Presentation of the participants 226 -- 8.3.2 Presentation of the findings 227 -- 8.4 PART 1 - DECISIONAL CAPACITY AND DECISIONS ABOUT HEALTH CARE 228 -- 8.4.1 Definition/characteristics of the decisional capacity 228 -- 8.4.2 Factors influencing decisional capacity related to health care 229 -- 8.4.3 Patient reported experiences of exerting their decisional capacity 239 -- 8.5 PART 2 - EVALUATION OF THE (IN)CAPACITY 245 -- 8.5.1 Methods to assess the capacity of the patients 245 -- 8.5.2 When should the decisional capacity be assessed? 246 -- 8.5.3 Actors of the evaluation 248 -- 8.5.4 Communication of the results of the evaluation 249 -- 8.5.5 Consequences of the evaluation 249 -- 8.6 PART 3 - SOLUTIONS TO RESTORE AND MAINTAIN DECISIONAL CAPACITY 250 -- 8.6.1 At patient level 250 -- 8.6.2 At institutional level 255 -- 8.6.3 At political level 256 -- 8.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS AND POTENTIAL BIAS 258 -- 9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 260 -- 9.1 NO CLARITY IN TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITION OF DECISIONAL CAPACITY 260 -- 9.2 SHIFT FROM SUBSTITUTED-DECISION MAKING TO SUPPORTED-DECISION MAKING? 262 -- 9.3 TOWARDS A MORE PROMINENT ROLE FOR SUPPORTED DECISION-MAKING IN BELGIUM? 264 -- 9.4 ELEMENTS TO STRENGTHEN SUPPORTED DECISION – MAKING 265 -- 9.4.1 Foresee more (types of) support 265 -- 9.4.2 Provide training for patients and support persons 267 -- 9.4.3 Provide training for professionals 268 -- 9.4.4 Manage medical barriers for decisional capacity 268 -- 9.4.5 Facilitate advance care planning 269 -- 9.5 ELEMENTS TO FACILITATE DECISIONAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS 272 -- 9.5.1 Guidance on how to deal with decisional capacity (assessments) for healthcare professionals 273 -- 9.5.2 Provide support in the assessment process 275 -- 9.5.3 Provide training, intervision and supervision for professionals 275 -- 9.6 ORGANISING SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING OF PATIENTS IN A COHERENT WAY 276 -- 9.7 FORESEE GUARANTEES RELATED TO COERCION AND OPPOSITION OF PATIENTS 277 -- 9.8 OVERALL NEED FOR SUPPORT MEASURES EMBEDDED IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO OPTIMIZE THE PROCESS OF ASSESSING, SUPPORTING AND RESTORING DECISIONAL CAPACITY 278 -- APPENDICES 279 -- APPENDIX 1. LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGIES 279 -- APPENDIX 1.1. SEARCH STRATEGY 279 -- APPENDIX 1.2. REASONS OF EXCLUSION OF 13 ARTICLES 281 -- APPENDIX 1.3. SUCCINCT DESCRIPTION OF THE 76 INCLUDED ARTICLES 283 -- APPENDIX 1.4. INSTRUMENTS FOR DECISION-MAKING ASSESSMENT. 294 -- APPENDIX 2. STATEMENTS AND CASES OF THE PROFESSIONAL FORUM 300 -- APPENDIX 3. INTERVIEW GUIDE 308 -- APPENDIX 3.1. INTRODUCTION 308 -- APPENDIX 3.2. QUESTIONNAIRE IN FRENCH 309 -- APPENDIX 3.3. TOPIC GUIDE IN DUTCH 315 -- REFERENCES 324 Link for e-copy: https://doi.org/10.57598/R349C Format of e-copy: PDF (4,04 MB) Record link: https://kce.docressources.info/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4811 Belgian methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations / Irina Cleemput in Value in Health, 12(2009)04 ([07/01/2009])
Languages : English (eng)
in Value in Health > 12(2009)04 [07/01/2009] . - 441-9
Descriptors: Classification
W 1 Serials. Periodicals
Indexation
Belgium ; Cooperative Behavior ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Decision Making ; Economics, Pharmaceutical ; Feasibility Studies ; Great Britain ; Humans ; Insurance, Health, Reimbursement ; Journal Article ; Peer Review ; Practice Guideline [Publication type] ; Prescription Drugs ; Research ; UncertaintyAbstract: OBJECTIVE: To develop methodological guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (PE) submitted to the Belgian Drug Reimbursement Committee as part of a drug reimbursement request.
METHODS: In 2006, preliminary pharmacoeconomic guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary research team. Their feasibility was tested and discussed with all stakeholders. The guidelines were adapted and finalized in 2008.
RESULTS: The literature review should be transparent and reproducible. PE should be performed from the perspective of the health-care payer, including the governmental payer and the patient. The target population should reflect the population identified for routine use. The comparator to be considered in the evaluation is the treatment most likely to be replaced. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses are accepted as reference case techniques, under specific conditions. A final end point-as opposed to a surrogate end point-should be used in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), a generic quality-of-life measure should be used. PE should in principle apply a lifetime horizon. Application of shorter time horizons requires appropriate justification. Uncertainty around the ICER should always be assessed. Costs and outcomes should be discounted at 3% and 1.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The current guidelines are the result of a constructive collaboration between the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance and the pharmaceutical industry. A point of special attention is the accessibility of existing Belgian resource use data for PE. As PE should serve Belgian health-care policy, they should preferably be based on the best available data.
Link for e-copy: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00469.x Format of e-copy: VDIC IP recognition Record link: https://kce.docressources.info/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2472 [article]
ISSN : D/2014/10.273/01 : € 0,00
Studie 2010-03
Languages : Dutch (nla)
Descriptors: Classification
WP 870 - Breast - - Neoplasms
Indexation
2010-03 ; Breast Neoplasms ; Decision Making ; Decision Support Techniques ; Health Communication ; Mass Screening ; R216Abstract: Zal ik een screeningsonderzoek van de borsten laten doen of niet? Verbetert dit mijn kansen op overleving? Zijn er ook nadelen aan de screening? Wat gebeurt er als er een afwijking wordt ontdekt? Deze en vele andere vragen kunnen vrouwen zich stellen als hen een borstkankeronderzoek wordt aangeboden. Om bewust te kunnen kiezen voor een screening (of niet) moet een vrouw vooraf duidelijk en volledig geïnformeerd worden over de voor- en nadelen en de gevolgen van (niet-) screening. Het KCE stelde een set van neutrale boodschappen op voor vrouwen met een normaal risico op borstkanker. Hierbij werd bijzondere aandacht besteed aan het zo verstaanbaar mogelijk maken van de boodschap, voor alle vrouwen. Het materiaal dient om te worden gebruikt door iedereen die actief is in het domein, bij patiëntencontacten of om te worden opgenomen in geschreven documentatie. Contents note: VOORWOORD 1 -- SAMENVATTING 2 -- CONTEXT 2 -- DOELSTELLING 3 -- METHODES 3 -- RESULTATEN 4 -- SYNTHESE 5 -- INHOUDSTAFEL 5 -- 1. DOEL EN CONTEXT 6 -- 1.1. BOODSCHAPPEN OVER BORSTKANKERSCREENING 6 -- 1.2. NEUTRALE BOODSCHAPPEN VOOR EEN WELOVERWOGEN BESLISSING 6 -- 1.3. BOODSCHAPPEN VOOR VROUWEN VAN 40 TOT 79 JAAR ZONDER VERHOOGD RISICO OP BORSTKANKER 7 -- 2. ALGEMENE WETENSCHAPPELIJKE BENADERING 8 -- 3. DE BOODSCHAPPEN 10 -- 3.1. ALGEMENE KENMERKEN VAN DE BOODSCHAPPEN 10 -- 3.2. ALGEMENE INFORMATIE OVER BORSTKANKERSCREENING 10 -- 3.2.1. Boodschappen "Wat is borstkankeropsporing? 12 -- 3.2.2. Boodschap: "Hoe gebeurt het onderzoek bij borstkankeropsporing?" 12 -- 3.2.3. Boodschap: "Voor wie is deze informatie?" 12 -- 3.2.4. Boodschap: "Waarvoor dient deze informatie?" 13 -- 3.3. BORSTKANKER EN ANDERE DOODSOORZAKEN 13 -- 3.4. GEVOLGEN VAN BORSTKANKERSCREENING OP LANGE TERMIJN 14 -- 3.5. GEVOLGEN VAN BORSTKANKERSCREENING OP KORTE TERMIJN 17 -- 4. ANDERE NUTTIGE INFORMATIE VOOR VROUWEN 18 -- 5. CONCLUSIE 20 -- AANBEVELINGEN 21 -- REFERENTIES 22 Link for e-copy: https://doi.org/10.57598/R216AS Format of e-copy: PDF (700 Kb) Record link: https://kce.docressources.info/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3336 Copies(0)
Status No copy
Permalink
PermalinkPermalink
Permalink
PermalinkPermalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
