No abstract

BackgroundRecovery post stroke is well documented in the field of stroke rehabilitation. The structure and process of rehabilitation are different between developed and developing countries. The aim of the present study was to compare the motor and functional recovery of stroke patients in Germany versus stroke patients receiving rehabilitation in South Africa.MethodsThis study used secondary data analysis of patient protocols collected in two independent studies conducted in Germany and South Africa respectively. A total of 73 patients from the two separate studies were matched for age at stroke onset, gender, and initial motor functioning. Motor and functional recovery were assessed at baseline, two and six months post stroke using the Rivermead Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index (BI) respectively. Significant differences in motor and functional recovery were found, using the Wilcoxon rank sum test on admission to the centre, and at two and six months after stroke. A generalized linear mixed-methods model (GLIMMIX) was used to compare the recovery patterns between the participants from the two settings over time.ResultsThe results of the GLIMMIX revealed a significant difference in favour of the German participants for gross motor (RMA-GF) and upper limb (RMA-A) recovery, while no significant difference was found for lower limb (RMA-LT) and functional (BI) recovery patterns between the participants of the two settings. No significant differences existed in RMA-A and BI-scores on admission to the CHC/SRU. At two and six months after stroke, both the RMA-A and BI-scores were significantly lower in the South African than the German sample.ConclusionThe results of this study provide empirical evidence for differential recovery patterns for patients in developed and developing countries. A detailed exploration of the factors to which this difference in recovery patterns can be attributed was beyond the scope of the present study, and is recommended for future research.

This exploratory study was conducted in the Metro North Education District in Cape Town.Methods: Five focus group interviews were conducted with a snowball sample of 35 stakeholders including parents (n = 9) and professionals from education (n = 17) and health (n = 9) systems. Transcriptions were thematically analysed. Resultant themes were summarised to reflect stakeholders' perceptions. Results:The results showed four major groups of factors that affect school readiness: community, adverse experiences, educational and familial factors. Firstly, community factors thematically identified were unemployment, socio-economic status (SES) and culture as impacting school readiness. Secondly, adverse experiences included violence, trauma and substance abuse that affect school readiness. Thirdly, educational factors identified are lack of stimulation, barriers to learning, teacher support and cooperation between stakeholders that influence readiness. Fourthly, familial factors such as parental support, variation in child-rearing practices and caregiver literacy exert influence on school readiness. Conclusion:Acknowledgement of and engagement with the above-mentioned four factors could result in a nuanced and contextual understanding of school readiness and might foster cooperation between stakeholders.

Background. Currently, clinicians who move into academia may not have the necessary skills for this transition. Given that most health professionals are socialised into their professional roles as clinicians, the shift to academia requires a second socialisation into the academic role. There is a body of existing research that suggests that the transition for clinicians as they become lecturers in higher education is challenging. Aim. This study aimed to determine the subjective experiences of young academics in their transition from clinicians to clinical educators/academics. In particular, participants were asked to identify the factors that acted as facilitators or barriers to their transition from clinician to academic. Methods. The study employed a phenomenological framework. Participants (N=7) were a group of clinical educators/lecturers involved with undergraduate students at an identified institution. Unstructured interviews were conducted. Following each interview, audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and all data were anonymised. Data were analysed manually by each author and consensus was reached on the identified themes. Results. The mean age of participants was 31 years, with an average of 8.4 years of clinical experience and 3.4 years of academic/clinical education experience. The transition experience from clinician to academic is discussed according to two themes, i.e. intrinsic factors (confidence, competence, personality, and ability to draw on personal experience) and extrinsic factors (supportive environment, peer relationships, mentoring, understanding institutional rules and regulations). Conclusion.The findings identified both intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may facilitate or hinder the transition process. Intrinsic factors such as uncertainty and personality influences or extrinsic factors such as supportive environments can interact to thwart the adjustment or transition of new staff. Despite individual differences, there is an essence to the experience of the adjustment to academic, as evidenced by the reaching of saturation in a relatively small sample. Based on the results, it is evident that there is a clear need for staff development initiatives related to internal motivation of the individual and supportive extrinsic factors to successfully make the transition to clinical education.

Background: Higher education is a high stress occupation or environment. Academics in health professions are engaged in professional training that adds clinical or profession-specific competencies to general academic and research outcomes. Academics in health professions assume many roles and must remain current in the practise of their professions that increases stress. Studies on occupational stress amongst health professions academics are lacking in the South African context. Objectives: To assess occupational stress in a sample of Health profession academics at aHistorically Disadvantaged Institution (HDI).Methods: An online survey was conducted with a randomly selected sample of 51 permanent academics. The response rate was 55 per cent after incentives and reminders. Instruments included a demographic questionnaire, Assessing emotions scale and the Sources of Work Stress Inventory. Descriptive statistics, correlation and regression were used to analyse the data. Instruments were reliable with this sample. Ethics clearance was obtained (Reg. No.: 15/4/42) and all ethics principles were upheld. Simons, Munnik, Frantz and Smith The profile of occupational stress in a sample of health profession academics 133Results: The sample was mostly female, and the composition was consistent with the profiles of the faculty, health professions and HDIs. Small effects were reported for associations between demographics, EI and Occupational stress. Mixed results were reported for predictive relationships. EI and level of education were predictive of certain sources of occupational stress.Conclusion: Transformations and the work environment contributed to academics experiencing occupational stress. The historical apartheid legacies still manifest in patterned ways along gender, race and professional status in the occupational stress academics experience. Health professionals constitute a legitimate subgroup that impacts the experience and management of occupational stress. EI is an important factor to consider in the experience and management of occupational stress.