We read with great interest the study by Dr. AlAhmari which explored the attitudes of final year respiratory care (RC), nursing and clinical laboratory science (CLS) students, from Saudi Arabia, regarding interprofessional education (IPE). 1 We were excited to see the positive attitudes demonstrated by healthcare students regarding IPE. However, we believe certain aspects of this study need to be addressed. Firstly, the instrument used within the study to assess student attitudes towards IPE needs to be examined. The tool in question is the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) questionnaire developed by Parsell and Bligh in 1999. 2 This is a 19 item questionnaire with 3 subscales: Teamwork and Collaboration, Professional Identity, and Roles and Responsibilities. 2 Only two articles are cited for the justification of using this tool: the first is the original pilot study from Parsell and Bligh and the second is a study by McFadyen et al which studied a modified version of RIPLS with 4 subscales. 2,3 Both of these studies found the overall internal consistency of the instrument to be reasonable, however, this did not extend to the subscales. For example, the Roles and Responsibility subscale had an internal consistency of only 0.32 and 0.43 respectively. 2,3 These values are too low to be validated for use thus explaining why they have often been left out in some IPE studies. 4 Due to this issue, as well as others, there has been discussions regarding the optimum structure of this instrument with McFadyen et al suggesting 4 subscales as the ideal. 3 The lack of consistency between researchers, regarding the questionnaires structure, indicates its fragility. Whilst we understand using "off the shelf" tools can aid in progressing research with minimal resources, it is important to understand their nuances so as not to bias studies. 3 A discussion regarding its psychometric limitations should be included in a limitations section of the paper explaining how it may have impacted upon findings. Secondly, 67 participants were recruited for this study and consented, however, no information is provided as to whether this process was randomized. 1 If randomization was not performed it could introduce an element of selection bias as healthcare students who agreed to partake might have had shared characteristics such already being more eager to undertake IPE. A simple randomization process would help to reduce such bias. Thirdly, we found the study could have expanded its scope by reporting the results in context to gender as well. As similarly
Purpose: To determine whether route of access, transradial or transfemoral, leads to any discernible differences in patient radiation or contrast medium exposure as well as procedure time in elective prostate artery embolization (PAE). Methods: This retrospective study included sixty patients in total: n = 30 in the radial PAE group, and n = 30 in the femoral PAE group. All procedures were performed in a single angiography suite between May 2018 and January 2021, using a standard kit for each type of vascular access, the same microcatheter/wire combination and embolic agent to super-selectively target and embolize one or both prostate arteries. Outcome measures included dose area product (DAP, µGym 2 ), air kerma (mGy), fluoroscopy time (mins), procedure time (mins) and volume of contrast medium used (mL). Adverse events were also recorded. Results: The radial and femoral groups were matched for age (73.2 ± 7.5 vs 71.3 ± 10.14, P = .41) and body mass index (27.53 ± 5.08 vs 26.41 ± 3.93, P = .38). No significant difference in dose area product, air kerma, fluoroscopy time, procedure time or volume of contrast medium used was found between radial and femoral PAE. No adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Radial PAE is safe and comparable to femoral PAE with respect to patient radiation exposure, contrast medium usage, and procedure duration. Radial access is a useful skill to add to the armament of the interventional radiologist in elective PAE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.