METHODS: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management.
RESULTS: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ∼2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ∼60% countries, although access is limited.
CONCLUSIONS: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed.
METHODS: A total of doctors (39) and nurses (37) were recruited for an interventional study on the interprofessional learning approach on hospital acquired infection control. The participants responded to the University of West England Interprofessional (UWEIP) questionnaire at baseline consisting of four dimensions in IPL aspects; Self-assessment on communication and teamwork skills (CTW), interprofessional learning (IPL), interprofessional interaction (IPI), and interprofessional relationship (IPR). The Cronbach alpha value for the total questionnaire was established at 0.79.
RESULTS: The majority of doctors scored positive in CTW, IPL, IPR, and neutral in IPI. Nurses' also recorded the highest positive scores in CTW, IPL, and IPR, and neutral in IPI. Negative scores were found in CTW and IPI. A significant difference was revealed between doctors and nurses in IPL attitude; p = 0.024 and there was no significant difference in other dimensions (p > .05). Results also found a significant difference between participants' and non-participants of IPL training sessions; p = 0.009.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed the infusion of interprofessional learning training among the health professionals displayed better self-assessments, attitudes, and perceptions towards collaborative practices.
METHOD: An explanatory mixed method research design was carried out on first year medical students at a private university in Malaysia. In Phase I, a survey was conducted to explore the effectiveness of jigsaw learning. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated using SPSS. In Phase II, a focus group interview was conducted to explore their in-depth experiences. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven students participated in the survey and seven students took part in the focus group interview. Quantitative data analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in the student's individual accountability, promotive interaction, positive interdependence, interpersonal skill, communication skill, teamwork skill, critical thinking and consensus building after jigsaw learning sessions. Qualitative data explained their experiences in-depth.
CONCLUSION: Jigsaw cooperative learning improves collaboration, communication, cooperation and critical thinking among the undergraduate medical students. Educators should use jigsaw learning methods to encourage effective collaboration and team working. Future studies should explore the effectiveness of the jigsaw cooperative learning technique in promoting interprofessional collaboration in the workplace.