METHODS: Qualitative study using one-to-one semi-structured interviews conducted with 22 HCPs involved in the care of diabetic patients (6 endocrinologists, 4 general practitioners, 4 nurses and 8 pharmacists). Participants were recruited through general practices, community pharmacies and a diabetic centre in Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five key themes resulted from the analysis. HCPs generally demonstrated negative perceptions toward CAM, particularly regarding their evidence-based effectiveness and safety. Participants described having limited interactions with diabetic patients regarding CAM use due to HCPs' lack of knowledge about CAM, limited consultation time and strict consultation protocols. Participants perceived convenience as the reason why patients use CAM. They believed many users lacked patience with prescribed medications to deliver favourable clinical outcomes and resorted to CAM use.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs have noted inadequate engagement with diabetic patients regarding CAM due to a lack of knowledge and resources. To ensure the safe use of CAM in diabetes and optimize prescribed treatment outcomes, one must address the communication gap by implementing a flexible consultation protocol and duration. Additionally, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based information should be available to HCPs and diabetic patients.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental multiple time series was conducted starting in September 2017 and ending in June 2018. 140 nurses were sampled using the proportionate stratified random sampling technique; 132 were completed the study 67 the intervention group, while 65 in the control group.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in nurses' job performance or commitment between the 2 groups (control and intervention). A repeated measure MANOVA test for both groups revealed that the interaction between group and time was statistically significant (F (4, 127) = 144.841; P = .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.180; η2 = .820), indicating that groups had a significantly different pattern of job performance and commitment over time. A repeated test The MANCOVA test for both groups across time revealed significant differences in nurses' job performance and nurses' commitment at a less than 0.05 significance level (F (2127) = 320.724; P = .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.165; η2 = 0.835), and the overall effect of time was significant for all dependent variables (F (4125) = 36.879; P = .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.459; η2 = 0.541).
CONCLUSION: The educational intervention was effective in improving nursing job performance among the study sample. The improved commitment of respondents in the intervention group was attributed to the improvement in job performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plasma samples were collected prevaccination, 2 weeks and 6 months post-vaccination and tested for total immunoglobulin levels using ELISA method.
RESULTS: A small percentage of HCW (2.2%, 15/677) had elevated anti-S antibody levels in their pre-vaccination plasma samples (median 20.4, IQR 5.8), indicating that they were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination. The mRNA vaccine significantly increased anti-S levels of both previously infected and uninfected individuals to saturation levels (median 21.88, IQR.0.88) at 2 weeks postsecond dose of the vaccine. At 6 months post-vaccination, the antibody levels appeared to be maintained among the recipients of the mRNA vaccine. However, at this time point, anti-S antibody levels were lower in individuals given inactivated vaccine (median 20.39, IQR 7.31, n=28), and interestingly, their antibody levels were similar to anti-S levels in pre-vaccination exposed individuals. Antibody levels were not different between the sexes.
CONCLUSION: Anti-S levels differ in individuals given the different vaccines. While further study is required to determine the threshold level for protection against SARSCoV- 2, individuals with low antibody levels may be considered for boosters.
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.
CONCLUSION: Regular review and revision of indicators are essential to facilitate uptake of the NHWA for planning and monitoring healthcare providers.
METHODS: A multi-centric cross-sectional web-based study was conducted from 29th May to 27th July 2020 among HCWs in Perlis, Malaysia using a 19-item validated questionnaire [Cronbach's alpha: 0.61 (knowledge domain), 0.74 (attitude domain), and 0.72 (practice domain)]. Challenges when working during MCO were identified from a self-rated five-point Likert scale of 14-item.
RESULTS: There were a total of 373 respondents (response rate more than 40%); 48.0% were nurses, 14.7% were medical doctors, and 12.9% were administrative and technical support staffs. Majority of HCWs (90.1%, n = 336) had good knowledge, optimistic attitude (54.7%, n = 204) and good COVID-19 preventive measure practices (90.9%, n = 339). Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that profession was the single significant factor for good COVID-19 KAP. Though having lesser odds of good knowledge (aOR 0.07, 95% CI:0.01-0.36, p = .009), nurses showed greater odds of good attitude (aOR 3.14, 95% CI: 1.71-5.76, p = .011) and practice (aOR 10.69, 95% CI:2.25-50.86, p = .022) as compared to doctors and dentists. Main challenges identified when working during MCO were increased workload (44.5%, n = 166), difficulty going out shopping (48.3%, n = 180), to exercise (40.2%, n = 150) and meet with family members (64.3%, n = 240).
CONCLUSION: Generally, HCWs in Perlis had good KAP with regards to COVID-19 infection and its preventive measures. Challenges underlined by HCWs while working during the MCO were increased workload, difficulty to shop for daily essentials, exercise and meet with family members. Should good COVID-19 KAP be sustained, they might contribute to success in combating this disease.