METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additional articles were located through cross-checking of the references list and bibliography citations of the included studies and previous review papers. We included intervention studies with controlled or baseline comparison groups that were conducted in primary care practices or the community, targeted at adult populations (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials with controlled groups and pre- and post-intervention studies). The interventions were targeted either at individuals, communities, health care professionals or the health-care system. The main outcome of interest was the relative risk (RR) of screening uptake rates due to the intervention.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias for randomization was low to medium in the randomized controlled trials, except for one, and high in the non-randomized trials. Two analyses were performed; optimistic (using the highest effect sizes) and pessimistic (using the lowest effect sizes). Overall, interventions were shown to increase the uptake of screening for CVD risk factors (RR 1.443; 95% CI 1.264 to 1.648 for pessimistic analysis and RR 1.680; 95% CI 1.420 to 1.988 for optimistic analysis). Effective interventions that increased screening participation included: use of physician reminders (RR ranged between 1.392; 95% CI 1.192 to 1.625, and 1.471; 95% CI 1.304 to 1.660), use of dedicated personnel (RR ranged between 1.510; 95% CI 1.014 to 2.247, and 2.536; 95% CI 1.297 to 4.960) and provision of financial incentives for screening (RR 1.462; 95% CI 1.068 to 2.000). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of CVD risk factors screening uptake was not associated with study design, types of population nor types of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician reminders, using dedicated personnel to deliver screening, and provision of financial incentives were found to be effective in increasing CVD risk factors screening uptake.
METHODS: A qualitative approach was employed using focus group discussions (FGD) and in-depth interviews (IDI) at an academic centre that trains family physicians. Twelve trainees, all of whom were in their hospital specialty's rotations and five faculty members were purposively selected. Three FGDs among the trainees, one FGD and two IDIs among the faculty members were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide. Data were collected through audio-recorded interviews, transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy. A thematic approach was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: There were four main themes that emerged from the analysis. Both educators and trainees bill the perspective that BL encouraged continuity in learning. They agreed that BL bridges the gap in student-teacher interactions. Although educators perceived that BL is in concordance with trainees learning style, trainees felt differently about this. Some educators and trainees perceived BL to be an extra burden in teaching and learning.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights a mix positive and negative perceptions of BL by educators and trainees. BL were perceived positively for continuity in learning and student-teacher interaction. However, educator and learner have mismatched perception of learning style. BL was also perceived to cause extra burden to both educators and learners. Integrating BL to a traditional learning curriculum is still a challenge. By knowing the strengths of BL in this setting, family medicine trainees in Malaysia can use it to enhance their current learning experience. Future study can investigate different pedagogical designs that suit family medicine trainees and educators in promoting independent learning in postgraduate training.
METHODS: Focus group discussions with patients attending a family medicine center attached to a tertiary care hospital were carried out using the four gates model of Arabian medical professionalism that is appropriate to Arab culture. Discussions with patients were recorded and transcribed. Data were thematically analyzed using NVivo software.
RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data. (1) In dealing with patients, participants expected respect but understood delays in seeing physicians due to their busy schedules. In communication, participants expected to be informed about their health conditions and to have their questions answered. (2) In dealing with tasks, participants expected proper examination and transparency of diagnosis, but some expected the physician to know everything and did not appreciate them seeking outside opinions. They expected to see the same physician at every visit. (3) In physician characteristics preferences, participants preferred friendly smiling physicians. Some cared about the outer appearance of the physician whereas others did not.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study explained only two themes of the four gates model namely dealing with patients and dealing with tasks. Cultural competence and how to benefit from patients' perceptions to be an ideal physician should be incorporated into the process of physicians' training.