METHODS: Ten focus group discussions were held with opinion leaders (chiefs, elders, assemblymen, leaders of women groups) and 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with healthcare workers (District Directors of Health, Medical Assistants in-charge of health centres, and district Public Health Nurses and Midwives). The interviews and discussions were audio recorded, transcribed into English and imported into NVivo 10 for content analysis.
RESULTS: As heads of the family, men control resources, consult soothsayers to determine the health seeking or treatment for pregnant women, and serve as the final authority on where and when pregnant women should seek medical care. Beyond that, they have no expectation of any further role during antenatal care and therefore find it unnecessary to attend clinics with their partners. There were conflicting views about whether men needed to provide any extra support to their pregnant partners within the home. Health workers generally agreed that men provided little or no support to their partners. Although health workers had facilitated the formation of father support groups, there was little evidence of any impact on antenatal support.
CONCLUSIONS: In patriarchal settings, the role of men can be complex and social and cultural traditions may conflict with public health recommendations. Initiatives to promote male involvement should focus on young men and use chiefs and opinion leaders as advocates to re-orient men towards more proactive involvement in ensuring the health of their partners.
Methods: In this descriptive, cross-sectional study, a census sample of 76 midwives from two public hospitals and urban health centers in Torbat Heydariyeh, a city east of Iran were surveyed. Data collection tools were two reliable and valid questionnaires that measure midwives' attitudes and barriers of implementation of evidence-based practice. Data were analysed using SPSS version 16.
Results: The mean age and years of experience were 29.30 ± 4.86 and 5.22 ± 4.21 years, respectively. The mean score of attitude was 40.85 ± 4.84 (range = 30-60). This study also found time constraints (2.70 ± 0.92), inadequate facilities (2.64 ± 0.72), non-compilation of literature in one place (2.59 ± 0.92), lack of cooperation of physicians (2.48 ± 1.06) and the feeling of inadequate authority (2.45 ± 0.88) as the top five barriers to implementing EBP.
Conclusion: Survey participants demonstrated a positive attitude toward EBP. Organisational comprehensive strategies such as time efficiency, adequate material and human resources, familiarity with organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and managerial support for increasing professional legitimate authority are recommended to promote the use of Evidence-Based Practice in Iran.
DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic bibliographic databases.
REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was extracted from original studies, and integrated in a narrative synthesis guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Personal domains were clustered into themes using a modified Delphi technique.
RESULTS: A total of 584 articles were screened. 65 unique studies (80 articles) matched our inclusion criteria of which seven were conducted within nursing/midwifery faculties. Six in 10 studies featured applicants to medical school. Across selection processes, we identified 32 personal domains assessed by MMIs, the most frequent being: communication skills (84%), teamwork/collaboration (70%), and ethical/moral judgement (65%). Domains capturing ability to cope with stressful situations (14%), make decisions (14%), and resolve conflict in the workplace (13%) featured in fewer than ten studies overall. Intra- and inter-disciplinary inconsistencies in domain profiles were noted, as well as differences by entry level. MMIs deployed in nursing and midwifery assessed compassion and decision-making more frequently than in all other disciplines. Own programme philosophy and professional body guidance were most frequently cited (~50%) as sources for personal domains; a blueprinting process was reported in only 8% of studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare professionals should develop their theoretical frameworks for MMIs to ensure they are evidence-based and fit-for-purpose. We suggest a re-evaluation of domain priorities to ensure that students who are selected, not only have the capacity to offer the highest standards of care provision, but are able to maintain these standards when facing clinical practice and organisational pressures.