METHODS: An iterative process of questionnaire development was undertaken by combining two approaches: the steps proposed by Robert F. DeVellis for scale development and the recommended practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European statistical system. We attempted to develop the draft questionnaire that involved conceptualization and operationalization, generation of an item pool, development of the questionnaire format, review of the initial item pool by experts, and consideration of validation items for inclusion.
RESULTS: We generated an item pool from in-depth interviews with 14 women who sought infertility care within 6 months before the interview time. We then added more items from a literature review. The item pool contained 123 items distributed through 10 domains. Ten women with infertility were included for face validation. Then, experts with backgrounds in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Family Medicine, and Public Health reviewed the item pool using content validation (n = 10 professors and/or specialists). The item pool was finally reduced to 57 items. We developed the draft Arabic patient-centered infertility care questionnaire for female clients (PCIQ-F) with three sections, including 66 items: background variables, PCIC experience variables, and a general question about the quality of infertility care in the health facility. The draft questionnaire was further reviewed and edited last by experts in preparation for part 2, which will test the questionnaire and prepare the final version.
CONCLUSION: The PCIQ-F questionnaire development is a multi-step iterative process started and ended by the target users as experts. Experts' participation in infertility care and in questionnaire format development had a great impact on questionnaire development and conflict resolution. We recommend this transparent and replicable approach for new instrument developers; it is likely to generate a questionnaire that is valid and acceptable to target users. The draft PCIQ-F questionnaire is ready for testing of its psychometric properties before the final version to measure the PCIC level in health facilities.
METHODS: Guided by the UK Medical Research Council Framework, this seminal study adopted a qualitative, descriptive approach with content analysis. Data were obtained through 16 semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Themes emerged based on an inductive process using constant comparison (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). The COREQ checklist was used in ensuring rigour.
RESULTS: Three main themes emerged includes: (1) nurses' experiences with current diabetes care practices, (2) stakeholders' views on the development of a NLFB approach, and (3) merging the nurse-led family aspects into the diabetes care. The key challenges are the dominant medical model, lack of specialist nurses, and time. The key facilitators are knowledge and social support.
CONCLUSION: The study recommends stakeholders embrace nursing empowerment strategies and involve families to enhance the nurses' advanced roles and family inclusion in healthcare.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct the proposed scoping review following the method of Arksey and O'Malley. The literature search will include studies published from 2009 to 2019, and will be conducted on the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases; reference lists will be mined for literature not contained on these databases. A grey literature search will also be conducted. To be included in the review, studies should have been conducted on people with a history of infertility, with a focus on patient-centred fertility care. Studies that have not been published in full text and studies published in languages other than English will be excluded. After study selection, data will be charted in a prepared form. We will analyse the data using descriptive numerical and qualitative thematic analyses to answer the research questions. NVivo V.12 will be used for data extraction.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work does not warrant any ethical or safety concerns. This scoping review will synthesise existing literature on PCIC, and the results will be published to be readily available for clinical audiences and policymakers. These findings may support clinicians and decision-makers in applying PCIC, thereby promoting high-quality healthcare in the concerned population.
DESIGN: Semistructured in-depth telephone interviews.
SETTING: Hospitals providing infertility care, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
PARTICIPANTS: Arab women who received infertility treatment during the 6 months preceding the interview at any hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Interviews were conducted with Arab women experiencing infertility from January 2017 to December 2018. A purposive sample of 14 women were included in the final analysis with maximum variation.
RESULTS: Participants highlighted nine important PCIC dimensions. Of these, four were agreed on by all participants: accessibility, minimising cost, information and education, and staff attitudes and communication. The remaining five dimensions were staff competence, physical comfort, privacy, psychological and emotional support, and continuity and coordination of care. The concept of PCIC was related to three major contributors: participants' demographics, patient experience with infertility care and health-seeking behaviour.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provided nine PCIC dimensions and items, which can guide efforts to improve the quality of infertility care in Arab countries in two ways: first, by raising infertility care providers' awareness of their patients' needs, and second, by developing a validated tool based on the dimensions for measuring PCIC from Arab patients' perspective. Clear differences between the Arab and the European PCIC model were found. Our findings concluded that women continued to exhibit basic unmet needs.
METHODS: Third-year undergraduate dental students were facilitated to discuss stories, engage in perspective taking activities and keep a portfolio for assessment in the Stories and Perspectives selective. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data in their portfolios.
RESULTS: The dental students identified key learning points that would better prepare them for patient-centered care. Three themes emerged: (1) facilitate empathy in students, (2) stimulate self-awareness in students, and (3) motivate students to be perceptive communicators. Students were able to appreciate the complexities of care giving as it involved taking into account the thoughts and feelings of the other while recognizing their own mental state. They further valued the choice of appropriate words and actions in mediating this process.
CONCLUSION: The potential for incorporating humanities based approaches to teach patient care to dental students is favorable. Reading stories and extending this to perspective taking activities to induce creative ways to shift between experiences of self and other is a positive approach in preparing health professionals for care giving encounters.
METHODS: Participants (N = 2071) from Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, and the U.S.A. completed an online survey assessing their preferences for exchange of information, autonomy in decision-making, expression and validation of their emotions, focus on them as an individual, and the doctor-patient relationship.
RESULTS: Participants from all four countries had similar preferences for empathy and shared decision-making. For other facets of PCC, participants in the Philippines and Australia expressed somewhat similar preferences, as did those in the U.S.A. and Hong Kong, challenging East-West stereotypes. Participants in the Philippines placed greater value on relationships, whereas Australians valued more autonomy. Participants in Hong Kong more commonly preferred doctor-directed care, with less importance placed on the relationship. Responses from U.S.A. participants were surprising, as they ranked the need for individualized care and two-way flow of information as least important.
CONCLUSIONS: Empathy, information exchange, and shared decision-making are values shared across countries, while preferences for how the information is shared, and the importance of the doctor-patient relationship differ.
METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.
CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).
Method: The nature of patient-pharmacist counseling interactions was explored with seven patients (one focus group), and 10 practicing pharmacists (two focus groups, three semi-structured interviews). The themes identified informed the development of an online survey that was advertised online to patients and pharmacists across Australia.
Results: A total of 95 patients and 208 pharmacists completed the survey. Overall, more than half of patients (77/95) were satisfied with the care provided by their pharmacist, but only a third (71/205) of pharmacists were satisfied with the care they provided to patients. The majority of patients (67/94) reported that pharmacists provided good information about medications. This aligned with pharmacists' responses, as most reported focusing on medication side effects (118/188) and instructions for taking pain medication (93/183) during patient interactions. However, when asked about empathy and rapport from pharmacists, only half to two-thirds (48-61/95) of patients expressed positive views. Overall, half of the patients (39/75) wanted a caring, empathetic, respectful, and private conversation with the pharmacist, and nearly half (40/89) perceived the pharmacist's role as providing (new) information on alternative pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, including general advice on pain management.
Conclusion: There was a disparity in the nature of the interaction and information that patients wanted from pharmacists, compared to what was provided by pharmacists. Training and education may help pharmacists to better engage in patient-centered care when interacting with people living with persistent pain, thereby improving health outcomes for these patients.