METHODS: We included studies which used conversation analysis or discourse analysis to study recorded interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. We followed an aggregative thematic synthesis approach. This involved line-by-line coding of the results and discussion sections of included studies, and the inductive development and hierarchical grouping of descriptive themes. Top-level themes were organised to reflect their conversational positioning.
RESULTS: Of the 17,562 studies identified through systematic searching, ten papers were included. Analysis resulted in 10 top-level descriptive themes grouped into three domains: initiating; carrying out; and closing health behaviour change talk. Of three methods of initiation, two facilitated further discussion, and one was associated with outright resistance. Of two methods of conducting behaviour change talk, one was associated with only minimal patient responses. One way of closing was identified, and patients did not seem to respond to this positively. Results demonstrated a series of specific conversational practices which clinicians use when talking about HBC, and how patients respond to these. Our results largely complemented clinical guidelines, providing further detail on how they can best be delivered in practice. However, one recommended practice - linking a patient's health concerns and their health behaviours - was shown to receive variable responses and to often generate resistance displays.
CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour change talk is smoothly initiated, conducted, and terminated by clinicians and this rarely causes interactional difficulty. However, initiating conversations by linking a person's current health concern with their health behaviour can lead to resistance to advice, while other strategies such as capitalising on patient initiated discussions, or collaborating through question-answer sequences, may be well received.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional study was carried out to examine the breast cancer prevention information seeking behavior among 450 students at one private university in Malaysia.
RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 25±4.3 years. Common interpersonal information sources were doctors, friends, and nurses and common channel information sources were television, brochure, and internet. Overall, 89.9% used cell phones, 46.1% had an interest in receiving cell phone breast cancer prevention messages, 73.9% used text messaging, and 36.7% had an interest in receiving text breast cancer prevention messages. Bivariate analysis revealed significant differences among age, eduation, nationality and use of cell phones.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of health information seeking behavior is important for community health educators to target populations for program development.
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: An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were >50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated >30 patients with asthma per month, of which >60% were aged >12 years.
RESULTS: REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.
CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.
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: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation.
RESULTS: There are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient' programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan.
CONCLUSION: In summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia.
AIM: This review aimed to explore the effects of psychoeducational interventions on improving outcome measures for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline was used in this systematic review. Two reviewers were involved in screening articles for inclusion and in the data extraction process. The selected studies were assessed for quality using the 'Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT)' checklist. Out of the 441 records identified, 11 papers were considered for full review (from 2000 to 2018).
RESULTS: The psychoeducational interventions showed a consistent improvement in many outcome measures. Most of the reviewed studies focused on outpatients and the method of delivering the psychoeducational interventions was mostly in lecture format.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review of randomized controlled trial studies emphasizes the positive impact of psychoeducational interventions for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia concerning various outcome measures. The findings of this review have important implications for both nursing practice and research, as the information presented can be used by the administrators and stakeholders of mental health facilities to increase their understanding and awareness of the importance of integrating psychoeducational interventions in the routine care of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.