Summary Background The high prevalence of actinic keratosis (AK) requires the optimal use of healthcare resources. Objectives To gain insight in to the healthcare utilization of people with AK in a population‐based cohort, and the management of AK in a primary and secondary care setting. Methods A retrospective cohort study using three complementary data sources was conducted to describe the use of care, diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up of patients with AK in the Netherlands. Data sources consisted of a population‐based cohort study (Rotterdam Study), routine general practitioner (GP) records (Integrated Primary Care Information) and nationwide claims data (DRG Information System). Results In the population‐based cohort (Rotterdam Study), 69% (918 of 1322) of participants diagnosed with AK during a skin‐screening visit had no previous AK‐related visit in their GP record. This proportion was 50% for participants with extensive AK (i.e. ≥ 10 AKs; n = 270). Cryotherapy was the most used AK treatment by both GPs (78%) and dermatologists (41–56%). Topical agents were the second most used treatment by dermatologists (13–21%) but were rarely applied in primary care (2%). During the first AK‐related GP visit, 31% (171 of 554) were referred to a dermatologist, and the likelihood of being referred was comparable between low‐ and high‐risk patients, which is inconsistent with the Dutch general practitioner guidelines for ‘suspicious skin lesions’ from 2017. Annually, 40 000 new claims representing 13% of all dermatology claims were labelled as cutaneous premalignancy. Extensive follow‐up rates (56%) in secondary care were registered, while only 18% received a claim for a subsequent cutaneous malignancy in 5 years. Conclusions AK management seems to diverge from guidelines in both primary and secondary care. Underutilization of field treatments, inappropriate treatments and high referral rates without proper risk stratification in primary care, combined with extensive follow‐up in secondary care result in the inefficient use of healthcare resources and overburdening in secondary care. Efforts directed to better risk differentiation and guideline adherence may prove useful in increasing the efficiency in AK management. What's already known about this topic? The prevalence of actinic keratosis (AK) is high and, in particular, multiple AKs are a strong skin cancer predictor. The high prevalence of AK requires optimal use of healthcare resources. Nevertheless, (population based) AK healthcare utilization and management data are very rare. What does this study add? Although AK‐related care already consumes substantial resources, about 70% of the AK population has never received care. Primary care AK management demonstrated underutilization of topical therapies and high referral rates without proper risk stratification, while in secondary care the extensive follow‐up schedules were applied. This inefficient use of healthcare resources highlights the need for better harmonization and risk stratification to increase the ...

It is advocated to organize skin cancer care that is better tailored to the needs of patients with KC, providing patient-centred care. This should include investing in the patient-physician relationship, and personalizing the type and form of information and the follow-up schedules. Adding the patient's perspective to current guidelines could facilitate this process.

The call for ‘evidence-based health policy’ in the Netherlands has to date been accommodated by the consensual policy tradition in this country and by the institutionalised arrangements for research funding, researcher career development and research accountability systems. The aim of this paper is to describe and explain from a sociological perspective how these arrangements for two-way research–policy interactions enable the co-production of ‘useable knowledge’ for ‘doable problems’ in health policy making. We conclude that many arrangements function as boundary objects that allow for mediation between research and policy. This mediation occurs via both frontstage and backstage processes. The backstage processes are an essential precondition for the co-production of acceptable evidence, policy advice and policy in the frontstage. However, as a result of the increasing emphasis on evidence-based policy, and an accompanying instrumentalisation of research use in the policy process, some of the characteristic, and until now productive, elements of the Dutch system are threatened.

No abstract