Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between January and March 2018 at the International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, Malaysia. The Self-Efficacy for Interprofessional Experiential Learning scale was used to evaluate the self-efficacy of 336 students from five faculties including nursing, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy and allied health sciences.
Results: Significant differences in self-efficacy scores for the interprofessional interaction subscale were identified according to programme of study, with pharmacy students scoring significantly lower than allied health students (mean score: 54.1 ± 10.4 versus 57.4 ± 10.1; P = 0.014). In addition, there was a significant difference in self-efficacy scores for the interprofessional interaction subscale according to year of study, with first-year students scoring significantly lower compared to fifth-year students (mean score: 52.8 ± 10.4 versus 59.9 ± 11.9; P = 0.018). No statistically significant differences in self-efficacy scores were identified with regards to gender or for the interprofessional team evaluation and feedback subscale.
Conclusion: These findings may contribute to the effective implementation of IPL education in healthcare faculties. Acknowledging the influence of self-efficacy on the execution of IPL skills is crucial to ensure healthcare students are able to adequately prepare for future interprofessional collaboration in real clinical settings.
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.