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.
METHOD: Electronic literature search was conducted on eight databases using keywords and MeSH guidelines. Using the PRISMA protocol, studies published from 2003 to 2022 were retrieved and analyzed.
RESULT: Of the 1481 articles identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria. All the included studies were conducted across 10 of the 36 states in Nigeria, with every geo-political zone in Nigeria represented by at least two studies. The overarching themes identified were attitude and beliefs (n = 7), knowledge of HIV/AIDS (n = 3), quality of care (n = 4), education and in-service training (n = 4), and health facility policies and procedures (n = 3). Factors associated with HIV-related stigma among healthcare workers varied by gender, healthcare settings, specialties of health workers, and the presence of institutional stigma reinforcements. Healthcare workers without recent in-service training on HIV/AIDS and those who work in hospitals without anti-HIV/AIDS stigma policies exhibited more HIV-related stigmatizing attitudes.
CONCLUSION: Continuous in-service training of healthcare workers and the development of comprehensive stigma reduction interventions that will be reinforced with anti-HIV stigma policies in clinical settings may facilitate the attainment of national HIV prevention goals.
AIM: To develop an international taxonomy of standardized terms and activity definitions related to medication reviews.
METHOD: This was a three-stage Delphi-based consensus study with international medication review experts. A systematic review provided MR activity terms for the survey. Experts rated their consensus on each activity term and its definition on a Likert scale and provided written feedback. The consensus was 75% panel agreement. At each stage, consensus elements were retained, and feedback was used to revise definitions.
RESULTS: Seven experts were recruited for the study (response rate 15.2%) from four countries: the United Kingdom (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). The following terms achieved consensus: the term Medication as a descriptor for MR terms; discontinue medication, start medication, dose increase, dose decrease, dosage form change, and medication safety and efficacy monitor to describe MR activity; Educate to describe the delivery of healthcare professionals and patients/carers education.
CONCLUSION: Standardized medication review activity terms and definitions have been selected for universal adoption in all future MR research to facilitate a meaningful comparison of process evaluations within different settings.
METHODS: The study from March 2016 to April 2017 was conducted to validate the 'Work Readiness Scale' (WRS; Deakin University) using Principal Component Analysis and Cronbach - α for internal consistency. It was modified to a four-item even-point scale and distributed as an online survey to 335 final year students of the three programs.
RESULTS: A reduction from 64 to 53 items provided good internal consistency in all factors: WC 0.85, OA 0.88, SI 0.88 and PC 0.71. The PC domain had the greatest item reduction from 22 to 6, whilst the SI domain increased in items from 8 to 19. These changes may be associated with difference in understanding or interpretation of the items in the SI domain.
CONCLUSION: The modified WRS can be used to evaluate job readiness in HP graduates. However, it needs further refinement and validation in specific educational and employment contexts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study conducted online, using Google FormTM recruited 207 Medical Officers from 14 public primary health centres, with a response rate of 74%. The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Questionnaire for Family Physicians (KAPQFP) was used to assess PCPs' knowledge, attitude and practice in dementia care. Items in each domain were scored on a 4-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 to 4. Each domain's mean score was divided by 4 and converted to a scale of 100, with higher scores indicating better knowledge, attitude and practice. Bivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with cognitive evaluation practice.
RESULTS: The overall mean practice score was 3.53±0.52 (88.3%), which is substantially higher than the mean score for perceived competency and knowledge of 2.46±0.51 (61.5%). The mean score for attitude towards dementia and collaboration with nurses and other healthcare professionals was 3.36±0.49 (84.0%) and 3.43±0.71 (85.8%), respectively. PCPs with prior dementia training showed better practice (p=0.006), as did PCPs with longer primary care work experience (p=0.038). A significant positive association was found between knowledge-practice ((rs=0.207, p=0.003), attitude towards dementia practice ((rs=0.478, p<0.001), and attitude towards collaboration with other healthcare professionals-practice (rs= 0.427, p<0.001). Limited time and inadequate knowledge regarding dementia diagnosis and cognitive evaluation tools were among the reasons cognitive evaluations were not performed.
CONCLUSION: PCPs demonstrated better practice of cognitive evaluation, as compared to their knowledge and attitude. Given that their perceived competency and knowledge on dementia diagnosis is low and is positively associated with their practice, it is crucial to implement a comprehensive dementia training to enhance their knowledge and confidence on early detection of cognitive decline and cognitive evaluation in order to achieve better dementia detection in primary care.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the medication self-management capability of home-dwelling older adults with CF and exploring the ways, perceived challenges and barriers in medication self-management.
METHODS: A convergent mixed-method study design was used. The medication management capability of 16 CF individuals aged ≥ 60 years on ≥ 1 long-term prescription drugs were assessed using the Drug Regimen Unassisted Grading Scale (DRUGS). Virtual in-depth interviews were also performed between July-August 2022 using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach guided by Bailey and colleagues' model of medication self-management.
RESULTS: The mean DRUGS summary score was 96.86 [standard deviation (SD) 3.74] with highest performance scores observed in medication access (100 %) and lowest performance score in medication identification (91.46 %). Informants were able to independently take their medications and they tended to organise their medication intakes according to mealtime even though some admitted missing medication doses due to forgetfulness. Informants had difficulties with recalling drug names, with little awareness of self-monitoring their own health conditions and the effects of medications. Misconceptions towards medications, difficulties in accessing medications, reduced mobility and worsening health conditions could potentially deter informants from safe and independent medication self-management. In contrast, trust in doctors and a desire to achieve treatment goal could motivate medication self-management.
CONCLUSION: The findings revealed knowledge gaps among older adults with CF in identifying their medications and self-monitoring which warrant reinforcement by healthcare professionals to ensure chronic safe medication use. Future studies should evaluate strategies to enhance medication safety in terms of self-monitoring in individuals with CF.
METHOD: A systematic Boolean search in PubMed, EMBase and EBSCOhost research databases was performed. Keyword search and citation analysis were also conducted. Empirical studies reporting ICT based interventions, and their implications on relative effectiveness in reducing unnecessary diagnostic tests (pathology tests or medical imaging) were evaluated independently by two reviewers based on a rigorously developed coding protocol.
RESULTS: 92 research articles from peer-reviewed journals were identified as eligible. 47 studies involved a single-method intervention and 45 involved multi-method interventions. Regardless of the number of interventions involved in the studies, ICT-based interventions were utilized by 71 studies and 59 of them were shown to be effective in reducing unnecessary testing. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool appeared to be the most adopted ICT approach, with 46 out of 71 studies using CDS tools. The CDS tool showed effectiveness in reducing test volume in 38 studies and reducing cost in 24 studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review investigated five frequently utilized intervention methods, ICT-based, education, introduction of guidelines or protocols, audit and feedback, and reward and punishment. It provides in-depth analysis of the efficacy of different types of interventions and sheds insights about the benefits of ICT based interventions, especially those utilising CDS tools, to reduce unnecessary diagnostic testing. The replicability of the studies is limited due to the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of context, study design, and targeted types of tests.
METHODS: This phenomenological qualitative study focussed on patients' experiences in relation to EnPHC interventions. Participants were purposely selected from a group of patients who attended the eight intervention primary healthcare clinics in Johor and Selangor regularly for treatment. Data collection was conducted between April to July 2018. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at average an hour per interview for four to five patients per clinic. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: A total of 35 patients participated. Analysis revealed five main themes about patient experiences receiving the EnPHC intervention. These are: (1) health assessment in disease progress monitoring, (2) patient-doctor relationship and continuity of care, (3) professionalism in service delivery, (4) ensuring compliance in achieving health targets and (5) communication skills. Each theme represents an important aspect of the service, how it should be delivered within the patient expectations and how it can improve patient's health through their lens.
CONCLUSION: Even though patients were not able to exactly identify the EnPHC intervention components implemented, they are able to describe the process changes that occurred; enabling them to improve their healthcare status. Engagement is necessary to better inform patients of the EnPHC intervention, its purpose, mechanisms, changes and importance for healthcare. It would reduce resistance and increase awareness amongst patients at the clinic.