Materials and Methods: This retrospective telephonic structured interview-based study was carried out on all orthopaedic patients taking DAMA during a one-year period from July 2016 to June 2017. They were telephonically interviewed with a structured questionnaire. Hospital and ED records were analysed for demographic as well as temporal characteristics.
Results: A total of 68 orthopaedic patients walked out of casualty against medical advice out of a total 775 (8.77%) orthopaedic patients presenting during the period as against 6.4% overall rate of DAMA for all specialties. The main reasons for DAMA were financial unaffordability of treatment (36.7%), preference for another orthopaedic surgeon (22%) and on advice of the patient's General Practitioner (16.1%).
Conclusion: Unaffordability of treatment is a significant cause for walkouts amongst orthopaedic patients. Private hospitals need to recognise and implement processes by which these patients can be treated at affordable costs and with coverage either by medical insurance or robust charity programs. Patient education and awareness are important to encourage them to have insurance coverage.
METHODS: The search strategies were performed via EBSCO MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Science Direct, PubMed, and PEDro databases from 2006 to 2016. The keywords "patient education", "low back pain", "elderly", "older adults", "older persons" and "older people" were used during the literature search. Boolean operators were used to expand or limit the searching scope and manual exclusion was performed to choose articles eligible for this study.
RESULTS: A total of 2799 articles were retrieved but only five articles were related with patient education for older people with LBP. Findings suggest that patient education for older people may differ in terms of its contents such as health education, self-management, video education, and postural education. The high methodological quality of the studies revealed that patient education showed improvement in terms of pain, disability and quality of life among older people with LBP.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient education improved pain and had positive effects on disability and quality of life among older people with LBP. However, due to the limited number of RCTs more studies are needed to provide evidence for its effectiveness.
METHODS: A novel research instrument known as the rheumatoid arthritis knowledge assessment scale (RAKAS) which consisted of 13 items, was formulated by a rheumatology panel and used for this study. This study was conducted in rheumatology clinics of three tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. The study was conducted in March-April 2018. Patients were recruited using a randomized computer-generated list of appointments. Sample size was calculated based on item-to-respondent ratio of 1:15. The validities, factor structure, sensitivity, reliability and internal consistency of RAKAS were assessed. The study was approved by the institutional Ethics Committee.
RESULTS: A total of 263 patients responded to the study. Content validity was 0.93 and response rate was 89.6%. Factor analysis revealed a 3-factor structure. Fit indices, namely normed fit index (NFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square of error approximation (RMSEA) were calculated with satisfactory results, that is, NFI, TLI and CFI > 0.9, and RMSEA 19 and difficulty index <0.95. Sensitivity and specificity of RAKAS were above 90%. The tool established construct and known group validities.
CONCLUSION: A novel tool to document disease knowledge in patients with RA was formulated and validated.
METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 98 participants representing 23 LMICs in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, East and Southern Africa, and Latin America.
RESULTS: Despite geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences, the common themes that emerged from the data across the 3 regions are strikingly similar: trust, knowledge gaps, stigma, sharing experiences, and sustainability. The authors identified common facilitators (training/education, relationship building/networking, third-party facilitators, and communication) and barriers (mistrust, stigma, organizational fragility, difficulty translating HIC strategies) to establishing trust, collaboration, and advancing cancer advocacy efforts. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to describe the role that coalitions and regional networks play in advancing breast cancer advocacy in LMICs across multiple regions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study corroborate the importance of investing in 3-way partnerships between CSOs, political leaders, and health experts. When provided with information that is evidence-based and resource appropriate, as well as opportunities to network, advocates are better equipped to achieve their goals. The authors propose that support for CSOs focuses on building trust through increasing opportunities for engagement, disseminating best practices and evidence-based information, and fostering the creation of platforms for partnerships and networks.
METHODS: We systematically followed a five-step scoping review framework to identify and review relevant literature about CRC screening in LMICs, written in the English language before February 2020. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies targeting the general, asymptomatic, at-risk adult population. The TIDieR tool and an implementation checklist were used to extract data from empirical studies; and we extracted data-informed insights from policy reviews and commentaries.
RESULTS: CRC screening interventions (n = 24 studies) were implemented in nine middle-income countries. Population-based screening programmes (n = 11) as well as small-scale screening interventions (n = 13) utilised various recruitment strategies. Interventions that recruited participants face-to-face (alone or in combination with other recruitment strategies) (10/15), opportunistic clinic-based screening interventions (5/6) and educational interventions combined with screening (3/4), seemed to be the strategies that consistently achieved an uptake of > 65% in LMICs. FOBT/FIT and colonoscopy uptake ranged between 14 and 100%. The most commonly reported implementation indicator was 'uptake/reach'. There was an absence of detail regarding implementation indicators and there is a need to improve reporting practice in order to disseminate learning about how to implement programmes.
CONCLUSION: Opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening programmes were related to the reporting of CRC cases and screening, cost-effective screening methods, knowledge about CRC and screening, staff resources and training, infrastructure of the health care system, financial resources, public health campaigns, policy commitment from governments, patient navigation, planning of screening programmes and quality assurance.
Methodology: This sub-analysis included Filipino patients with T1DM or T2DM, aged 18 years and older, treated with insulin for more than 12 months, who completed the two-part self-assessment questionnaires (SAQ1 and SAQ2) and patient diaries that recorded hypoglycemia during retrospective (6 months/4 weeks before baseline) and prospective period (4 weeks after baseline) (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02306681).
Results: A total of 671 patients were enrolled and completed the SAQ1 (62 patients with T1DM and 609 patients with T2DM). Almost all patients (100% in T1DM and 99.3% in T2DM) experienced at least 1 hypoglycemic event prospectively. The incidence of any hypoglycemia was also high in the prospective period compared to retrospective period (72.6 [95% CI: 64.8, 80.9] events PPY and 43.6 [95% CI: 37.8, 49.9] events PPY; p=0.001, respectively) in T1DM patients.
Conclusion: Among insulin-treated patients, higher rates of hypoglycemia were reported prospectively than retrospectively. This indicates that the patients in real-life setting often under-report hypoglycemia. Patient education can help in accurate reporting and appropriate management of hypoglycemia and diabetes.
METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, parallel-design, two-treatment-group randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of MEDIHEALTH in improving medication adherence. Malay patients who have underlying T2DM, who obtain medication therapy at Petra Jaya Health Clinic and Kota Samarahan Health Clinic, and who have a moderate to low adherence level (8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, Malaysian specific, score <6) were randomly assigned to the treatment group (MEDIHEALTH) or the control group. The primary outcome of this study is medication adherence level at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. The secondary outcomes are attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intention and knowledge related to medication adherence measured at baseline and 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. The effectiveness and sustainability of the Program will be triangulated by findings from semi-structured interviews with five selected participants conducted 1 month after the intervention and in-depth interviews with two main facilitators and two managerial officers in charge of the Program 12 months after the intervention. Statistical analyses of quantitative data were conducted using SPSS version 22 and Stata version 14. Thematic analysis for qualitative data were conducted with the assistance of ATLAS.ti 8.
DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence on the effectiveness and sustainability of a structured group-based educational program that employs multiple theoretical grounding and a culturally sensitive approach in promoting medication adherence among Malays with underlying T2DM. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings of this study could assist in the future development of the Program.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Medical Research Register, NMRR-17-925-35875 (IIR). Registered on 19 May 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03228706 . Registered on 25 July 2017.