METHOD: Using open-ended survey responses and document review, information about accreditation practices was classified using NHWA indicators. We examined practices using this framework and further examined the extent to which the indicators were appropriate for this cadre of healthcare providers. We developed a data extraction tool and noted any indicators that were difficult to interpret in the local context.

RESULTS: Accreditation practices in the five countries are generally aligned with the WHO indicators with some exceptions. All countries had standards for pre-service and in-service training. It was difficult to determine the extent to which social accountability and social determinants of health were explicitly part of accreditation practices as this cadre of practitioners evolved out of community health needs. Other areas of discrepancy were interprofessional education and continuing professional development.

DISCUSSION: While it is possible to use NHWA module 3 indicators there are disadvantages as well, at least for accelerated medically trained clinicians. There are aspects of accreditation practices that are not readily coded in the standard definitions used for the indicators. While the indicators provide detailed definitions, some invite social desirability bias and others are not as easily understood by practitioners whose roles continue to evolve and adapt to their health systems.

METHOD: Electronic literature search was conducted on eight databases using keywords and MeSH guidelines. Using the PRISMA protocol, studies published from 2003 to 2022 were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULT: Of the 1481 articles identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria. All the included studies were conducted across 10 of the 36 states in Nigeria, with every geo-political zone in Nigeria represented by at least two studies. The overarching themes identified were attitude and beliefs (n = 7), knowledge of HIV/AIDS (n = 3), quality of care (n = 4), education and in-service training (n = 4), and health facility policies and procedures (n = 3). Factors associated with HIV-related stigma among healthcare workers varied by gender, healthcare settings, specialties of health workers, and the presence of institutional stigma reinforcements. Healthcare workers without recent in-service training on HIV/AIDS and those who work in hospitals without anti-HIV/AIDS stigma policies exhibited more HIV-related stigmatizing attitudes.

INTRODUCTION: The escalating prevalence of overweight and obesity among health care workers significantly affects both individual health and the quality of health care services. Understanding this global prevalence is crucial to be able to implement informed interventions and policies, and for the overall optimization of health care delivery.

INCLUSION CRITERIA: Observational studies with prevalence data for overweight and obesity among health care workers in both private and public health care facilities will be considered for inclusion. Transparent documentation of anthropometric measurements and adherence to established overweight and obesity criteria by the WHO, Asia Pacific standards, or Asian criteria are required to be eligible for inclusion. The review will focus on observational study designs, including cross-sectional, survey, case-control, and cohort studies.

METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched for records with predefined keywords, including MeSH terms. Records found through hand-searching and reference lists will be added. Two researchers will independently screen studies, resolving any discrepancies with a third researcher. Standardized critical appraisal and data extraction forms will be used. If suitable, pooled prevalence for overweight and obesity based on the 6 WHO regions will be calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Statistical analysis will be performed and publication bias will be assessed through funnel plot analysis using either Egger, Begg, or Harbord test.

METHODS: The study from March 2016 to April 2017 was conducted to validate the 'Work Readiness Scale' (WRS; Deakin University) using Principal Component Analysis and Cronbach - α for internal consistency. It was modified to a four-item even-point scale and distributed as an online survey to 335 final year students of the three programs.

RESULTS: A reduction from 64 to 53 items provided good internal consistency in all factors: WC 0.85, OA 0.88, SI 0.88 and PC 0.71. The PC domain had the greatest item reduction from 22 to 6, whilst the SI domain increased in items from 8 to 19. These changes may be associated with difference in understanding or interpretation of the items in the SI domain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study conducted online, using Google FormTM recruited 207 Medical Officers from 14 public primary health centres, with a response rate of 74%. The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Questionnaire for Family Physicians (KAPQFP) was used to assess PCPs' knowledge, attitude and practice in dementia care. Items in each domain were scored on a 4-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 to 4. Each domain's mean score was divided by 4 and converted to a scale of 100, with higher scores indicating better knowledge, attitude and practice. Bivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with cognitive evaluation practice.

RESULTS: The overall mean practice score was 3.53±0.52 (88.3%), which is substantially higher than the mean score for perceived competency and knowledge of 2.46±0.51 (61.5%). The mean score for attitude towards dementia and collaboration with nurses and other healthcare professionals was 3.36±0.49 (84.0%) and 3.43±0.71 (85.8%), respectively. PCPs with prior dementia training showed better practice (p=0.006), as did PCPs with longer primary care work experience (p=0.038). A significant positive association was found between knowledge-practice ((rs=0.207, p=0.003), attitude towards dementia practice ((rs=0.478, p<0.001), and attitude towards collaboration with other healthcare professionals-practice (rs= 0.427, p<0.001). Limited time and inadequate knowledge regarding dementia diagnosis and cognitive evaluation tools were among the reasons cognitive evaluations were not performed.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the medication self-management capability of home-dwelling older adults with CF and exploring the ways, perceived challenges and barriers in medication self-management.

METHODS: A convergent mixed-method study design was used. The medication management capability of 16 CF individuals aged ≥ 60 years on ≥ 1 long-term prescription drugs were assessed using the Drug Regimen Unassisted Grading Scale (DRUGS). Virtual in-depth interviews were also performed between July-August 2022 using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach guided by Bailey and colleagues' model of medication self-management.

RESULTS: The mean DRUGS summary score was 96.86 [standard deviation (SD) 3.74] with highest performance scores observed in medication access (100 %) and lowest performance score in medication identification (91.46 %). Informants were able to independently take their medications and they tended to organise their medication intakes according to mealtime even though some admitted missing medication doses due to forgetfulness. Informants had difficulties with recalling drug names, with little awareness of self-monitoring their own health conditions and the effects of medications. Misconceptions towards medications, difficulties in accessing medications, reduced mobility and worsening health conditions could potentially deter informants from safe and independent medication self-management. In contrast, trust in doctors and a desire to achieve treatment goal could motivate medication self-management.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review process follows the five-staged Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology framework excluding the optional consultation stage (stage 6): the definition of the research questions (step 1); the eligibility criteria and search strategy are defined (stage 2); the study selection process based on the eligibility criteria identified will follow (stage 3); a framework developed for this review will then inform the extraction and charting of data from the included studies (step 4) and results will be aggregated and summarised with criteria relevant for health professionals and policymakers (stage 5). We will search for electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), grey literature sources and critical studies' reference lists to determine the appropriate inclusion criteria. Three researchers will review all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion.