Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Little is known about hesitancy to receive the COVID-19 vaccines. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the perceptions of healthcare workers (HCWs) and the general population regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, (2) to evaluate factors influencing the acceptance of vaccination using the health belief model (HBM), and (3) to qualitatively explore the suggested intervention strategies to promote the vaccination. ⋯ Awareness campaign can focus on enhancing the vaccine perceived benefit, debunking misconceptions, and increasing the disease perceived severity. Additionally, the public health leaders need to minimize the perceived barriers by providing the vaccines and appeasing people concerns about their storage, effectiveness, and adverse events.
-
Inappropriate use of telemetry frequently occurs in the inpatient, non-intensive care unit setting. Telemetry practice standards have attempted to guide appropriate use and limit the overuse of this important resource with limited success. Clinical-effectiveness studies have thus far not included care settings in which resident-physicians are the primary caregivers. ⋯ These findings expand our understanding of telemetry use in the academic care setting in which trainees serve as the primary caregivers. Furthermore, these findings represent an important addition to the telemetry and patient monitoring literature by demonstrating the impact that nurse-managed protocols can have on telemetry use and by highlighting effective strategies to improve telemetry use by physicians in training.
-
One knowledge translation method, of putting evidence into practice, is the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). The purpose of this brief report is to describe an 8-step process of "how to" contextualize a training programme to increase CPG-uptake for a targeted audience in a clearly defined setting. This process may assist implementation practitioners to fast-track the development of contextualized training to improve CPG-uptake.
-
Sturmberg and Martin in 2020 argue that universal health coverage (UHC) is mainly about financing, and primary health care (PHC) is about the right care at the right time to ensure health. They maintain that the World Health Organization has recently sent the wrong message about the "pillars" of PHC in their relationship to UHC. An understanding of political economy is required in order to come to terms with the bases of PHC and the fundamentals of UHC that dealing with inequities is not only an economic issue but fundamentally a political issue. ⋯ PHC is a changing system based on power relationships involving funders and the health community. In Australia as in several countries, out-of-pocket costs have grown rapidly and have affected access for some groups to PHC and have challenged the pretext of equity in UHC. In the context of PHC and UHC, we support the position that health for all goes beyond health care for all, to embrace healthy lives promoting wellbeing.
-
The health care delivery model in the United States does not work; it perpetuates unequal access to care, favours treatment over prevention, and contributes to persistent health disparities and lack of insurance. The vast majority of those who suffer from preventable diseases and health disparities, and who are at greatest risk of not having insurance, are low-income minorities (Native Americans, Hispanics, and African-Americans) who live in high risk and vulnerable communities. The historical lack of support in the United States for Universal Health Care (UHC) and Primary Health Care (PHC)-with their emphasis on health care for all, population health, and social determinants of health-requires community health scientists to develop innovative local solutions for addressing unmet community health needs. ⋯ Our community health science approach demonstrates that the factors contributing to health can only be addressed by working directly with and in affected communities to co-develop health care solutions across the broad range of causal factors. As the United States begins to consider expanding health care options consistent with PHC and UHC principles, our community health science experience provides useful lessons in how to engage communities to address the deficits of the current system. Perhaps the greatest assets US health care systems have for better addressing population health and the social determinants of health are the important health-related initiatives already underway in most local communities. Building partnerships based on local resources and ongoing social determinants of health initiatives is the key for medicine to meaningfully engage communities for improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities. This has been the greatest lesson we have learned the past two decades, has provided the foundation for our community health science approach, and accounts for whatever success we have achieved.