Methods: A double-blinded randomised control trial involving 200 participants between the ages of 20 to 65 years old breast cancer patients was performed. Apart from those who refused participation, patients with chronic diseases and extreme baseline depression scores were also excluded. The control group received standard care twice a week from the social welfare services team facilitator compared to the intervention group that received additional psycho-education intervention programme (PEIP). The coping strategies were measured using the Brief-COPE inventory consisting of 28 items. It was administered on the second and 12th week of trial. The primary end point was compared between pre- and post-intervention. The effect of the intervention between groups, time, and covariates was measured using the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) analysis.
Results: The mean (SD) of adaptive coping score among the intervention group increased from 5.63 (1.3) at baseline to 6.42 (1.3) at post-intervention. The mean avoidant coping score was 3.87 (1.1) at baseline but reduced to 3.69 (0.8) post-intervention. GLMM showed that women who received the intervention reported significantly higher usage of the adaptive coping strategies after attending the programme (B=0.921, p <0.001).
Conclusion: PEIP significantly improved knowledge of breast cancer patients. Thus, this programme may be considered as a part of the healthcare services in Jordan towards improving the adaptive coping strategies among breast cancer patients, which may point towards the potential for these services to increase adaptive coping strategies among patients in Jordan.
Implications for Public Health: PEIP may be considered as psychosocial intervention in public health and healthcare setting to address rising concerns on quality of care among breast cancer patients.
METHODS: An iterative process of questionnaire development was undertaken by combining two approaches: the steps proposed by Robert F. DeVellis for scale development and the recommended practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European statistical system. We attempted to develop the draft questionnaire that involved conceptualization and operationalization, generation of an item pool, development of the questionnaire format, review of the initial item pool by experts, and consideration of validation items for inclusion.
RESULTS: We generated an item pool from in-depth interviews with 14 women who sought infertility care within 6 months before the interview time. We then added more items from a literature review. The item pool contained 123 items distributed through 10 domains. Ten women with infertility were included for face validation. Then, experts with backgrounds in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Family Medicine, and Public Health reviewed the item pool using content validation (n = 10 professors and/or specialists). The item pool was finally reduced to 57 items. We developed the draft Arabic patient-centered infertility care questionnaire for female clients (PCIQ-F) with three sections, including 66 items: background variables, PCIC experience variables, and a general question about the quality of infertility care in the health facility. The draft questionnaire was further reviewed and edited last by experts in preparation for part 2, which will test the questionnaire and prepare the final version.
CONCLUSION: The PCIQ-F questionnaire development is a multi-step iterative process started and ended by the target users as experts. Experts' participation in infertility care and in questionnaire format development had a great impact on questionnaire development and conflict resolution. We recommend this transparent and replicable approach for new instrument developers; it is likely to generate a questionnaire that is valid and acceptable to target users. The draft PCIQ-F questionnaire is ready for testing of its psychometric properties before the final version to measure the PCIC level in health facilities.
DESIGN: We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Following a literature review and patient focus groups, an expert panel generated questionnaire items. Following a pilot study, item numbers were reduced. The final questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographics, perceived QoC and one open-ended question. Data was collected from patients (n = 531) discharged from hospitals across seven countries in South East Europe (languages: Turkish, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian). Reliability and validity of the measure were assessed.
RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare various factor models of patient-perceived QoC. Good model fit was demonstrated for a two-factor model: communication and interpersonal care, and hospital facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: The ORCAB (Improving quality and safety in the hospital: The link between organisational culture, burnout and quality of care) Patient QoC questionnaire has been collaboratively and exhaustively developed between healthcare professionals and patients. It enables patient QoC data to be assessed in the context of the IOM pillars of quality, considering both technical and interpersonal dimensions of care. It represents an important first step in including the patient perspective.
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 13 784 medical records from 20 selected public primary care clinics in Malaysia was performed for patients aged ≥30 years old who were diagnosed with hypertension and had at least one visit between 1st November 2016 and 30th June 2019. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for complex survey design was used to determine the association between process of care and blood pressure (BP) control among the hypertensive patients.
RESULTS: Approximately 50% of hypertensive patients were obese, 38.4% of age ≥65 years old, 71.2% had at least one comorbidity and approximately one-third were on antihypertensive monotherapy. Approximately two-third of the hypertensive patients with diabetic proteinuria were prescribed with the appropriate choice of antihypertensive agents. Approximately half of the patients received at least 70% of the target indicated care and 42.8% had adequately controlled BP. After adjusting for covariates, patients who received counseling on exercise were positively associated with adequate BP control. Conversely, patients who were prescribed with two or more antihypertensive agents were negatively associated with good BP control.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that BP control was suboptimal and deficient in the process of care with consequent gaps in guidelines and actual clinical practices. This warrants a re-evaluation of the current strategies and approaches to improve the quality of hypertension management and ultimately to improve outcome.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine if a clinical pathway (CPW) for inpatient paediatric asthma would reduce average length of stay (ALOS), improve asthma management and decrease cost.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental, pre-post study was used to evaluate the CPW effectiveness. Paediatric inpatients aged 5-18 years old, admitted for acute asthma exacerbation from September 2015 to April 2016 were prospectively recruited. Data from patients admitted from January-July 2015 were used as control. CPW training was carried out in August 2015 using standardised modules. Direct admission cost from the provider's prospective was calculated. Outcomes compared were differences in ALOS, discharge medication, readmission within 28 days of discharge and cost.
RESULTS: ALOS is 26 hours lower in the CPW group for severe exacerbations and underlying uncontrolled asthma (19.2 hours) which is clinically significant as patients have shorter hospital stay. More newly-diagnosed intermittent asthmatics were discharged with relievers in the CPW group (p-value 0.006). None of the patients in the CPW group had readmissions (p-value 0.16). Mean treatment cost for patients in the intervention group is higher at RM843.39 (SD ±48.99, versus RM779.21 SD±44.33).
CONCLUSION: This study found that management using a CPW may benefit asthmatic patients with uncontrolled asthma admitted with severe exacerbation. Further studies will be needed to explore CPW's impact on asthma management starting from the emergency department.