We conducted a prospective observational study to (1) determine usage and construct validity of a method to gauge the cognitive impact of information derived from daily e-mail, and (2) describe self-reported impacts of research-based synopses (InfoPOEMs) delivered as e-mail. Ratings of InfoPOEMs using an Impact assessment scale provided (a) data on usage of the impact assessment method, (b) reports of impact by InfoPOEM and by doctor and (c) data for analysis of construct validity of the scale. PARTICIPANTS were family physicians or general practitioners who rated at least five InfoPOEMs delivered on e-mail. For each InfoPOEM rated, 0.1 continuing education credit was awarded by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Use of the impact assessment scale linked to a daily InfoPOEM was sustained during the 150-day study period. 1,007 participants submitted 61,493 reports of 'cognitive impact' by rating on average 61 InfoPOEMs (range 5-111). 'I learned something new' was most frequently reported. 'I was frustrated as there was not enough information or nothing useful' was the most frequently reported negative type of impact. The proportion of reports of 'No Impact' varied substantially across individual InfoPOEMs. Impact patterns suggested an 8 or 9-factor solution. Our Impact assessment method facilitates knowledge transfer by promoting two-way exchange between providers of health information and family doctors. Providers of health information can use this method to better understand the impact of research-based synopses. Sustaining current practice and increasing knowledge about new developments in medicine are important outcomes arising from research-based synopses delivered as e-mail, in addition to practice change.
Primary health care practitioners routinely search for information within electronic knowledge resources. We proposed four levels of outcomes of informationseeking: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health outcomes. Our objective was to produce clinical vignettes for describing and testing these levels. We conducted a mixed methods study combining a quantitative longitudinal study and a qualitative multiple case study. Participants were 10 nurses, 10 medical residents, and 10 pharmacists. They had access to an online resource, and did 793 searches for treatment recommendations. Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), participants rated their searches for each of the four levels. Rated searches were examined in interviews guided by log reports and a think-aloud protocol. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described the four levels of outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes. We produced 130 clinical vignettes. Specifically, 46 vignettes (35.4%) corresponded to clinical situations where information use was associated with one or more than one type of positive patient health outcome: increased patient knowledge (n = 28), avoidance of unnecessary or inappropriate intervention (n = 25), prevention of disease or health deterioration (n = 9), health improvement (n = 6), and increased patient satisfaction (n = 3). Results suggested information use was associated with perceived benefits for patients. This may encourage clinicians to search for information more often when they feel the need. Results supported the four proposed levels of outcomes, which can be transferable to other information-seeking contexts.
Youth mental health (YMH) services are greatly underutilized, particularly for migrant youth. Collaborative models of care offer promising avenues, but research on these treatment modalities is still scarce, particularly for migrants. The goal of this exploratory study is to better understand quality of care including factors improving access to care and collaborative YMH services use, efficacy and satisfaction, for this vulnerable population. This qualitative study relies on a multi-informants (youth, parents, clinicians) and multiple case study design to explore YMH collaborative services for migrant youth living in an urban setting (Montreal, Canada). Participants are five young patients (12–15 years old), one of their parents and their primary care therapist (N = 15). They come from migrant families, have a psychiatric diagnosis and have been receiving mental health services in a collaborative care setting for at least 6 months. Transcripts of semi-structured interviews for the five triads were thematically analyzed to draw similarities and contrasts between actors, across and within case-studies. Based on these findings, four themes emerged concerning the optimal care setting for collaborative YMH services for migrant families: (1) providing an equilibrium between communication, collaboration and privacy/confidentiality, (2) special attention to ensuring the continuity of care and the creation of a welcoming environment where trusting relationships can develop, (3) the inclusion of family intervention, and (4) the provision of collaborative decision-making pathways to care, addressing interprofessional and interinstitutional collaboration as well as cultural differences in explanatory models and values.
This mixed‐method study explores the accessibility of developmental assets among Egyptian and Roma minority youth in Albania during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Six focus groups were conducted in August 2020 with Egyptian (
n
= 16) and Roma (
n
= 15) adolescents (14–20 years,
M
age
= 16.71;
SD
age
= 2.00; 14 girls and 17 boys). In addition, adolescents rated how much they experienced each developmental asset. Descriptive and thematic analyses highlighted: (1) low developmental assets and barriers to accessing resources, (2) mental health concerns and coping strategies, (3) the role of proximal contexts of life, and (4) experiences within the society in terms of discrimination, integration, and contribution to society. Inter‐sectoral community‐based interventions are urgently needed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on minority youth.
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.