METHODS: A systematic review was performed through Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar scientific databases. Studies pertaining to KAP of PV and ADR reporting by Indian health professionals between January 2011 and July 2015 were included in a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review and 18 of them were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, 55.6% (95% CI 44.4-66.9; p<0.001) of the population studied were not aware of the existence of the Pharmacovigilance Programme in India (PvPI), and 31.9% (95% CI 16.3-47.4; p<0.001) thought that "all drugs available in the market are safe". Furthermore, 28.7% (95% CI 16.4-40.9; p<0.001) of them were not interested in reporting ADRs and 74.5%, (95% CI 67.9-81.9; p<0.001) never reported any ADR to PV centers.
CONCLUSION: There was an enormous gap of KAP towards PV and ADR reporting, particularly PV practice in India. There is therefore an urgent need for educational awareness, simplification of the ADR reporting process, and implementation of imperative measures to practice PV among healthcare professionals. In order to understand the PV status, PvPI should procedurally assess the KAP of health professionals PV activities in India.
METHODS: CINAHL and Medline (via EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, Sage Journals, and Science Direct were searched. Both quantitative and/or qualitative studies in the English language were included. Intervention studies and studies focusing on HL assessment tools and prevalence of low HL were excluded. The risk of biasness reduced with the involvement of two reviewers independently assessing study eligibility and quality.
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included, which consist of 19 quantitative, 9 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method studies. Out of 17 studies, 13 reported deficiency of HL-related knowledge among healthcare providers and 1 among patients. Three studies showed a positive attitude of healthcare providers towards learning about HL. Another three studies demonstrated patients feel shame exposing their literacy and undergoing HL assessment. Common HL communication techniques reported practiced by healthcare providers were the use of everyday language, teach-back method, and providing patients with reading materials and aids, while time constraint was the most reported HL perceived barriers by both healthcare providers and patients.
CONCLUSION: Significant gaps exists in HL knowledge among healthcare providers and patients that needs immediate intervention. Such as, greater effort placed in creating a health system that provides an opportunity for healthcare providers to learn about HL and patients to access health information with taking consideration of their perceived barriers.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a universal sample of 307 health professionals comprising of nurses, medical assistants, medical residents, medical officers and physicians across medical and casualty departments in a Malaysian public hospital. The self-administered questionnaire consisted of items on socio-demographics, WhatsApp usage characteristics and the type of communication events during clinical practice.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents (68.4%) perceived WhatsApp as beneficial during clinical practice. In multivariate analysis, perceived benefits was significantly higher amongst the clinical management group (aOR=2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6, p=0.001), those using WhatsApp for >12months (aOR=1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, p=0.047), those receiving response ≤15min to a new communication (aOR=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, p=0.017), and frequent information giving events (aOR=2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8, p=0.016).
CONCLUSION: Perceived benefits of WhatsApp use in clinical practice was significantly associated with usage characteristics and type of communication events. This study lays the foundation for quality improvement innovations in patient management delivered through m-Health technology.
METHOD: This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.
RESULTS: The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains-intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics-that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.
CONCLUSION: Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers' receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics' setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.