Background On March 12, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic. On that date, there were 134,576 reported cases and 4981 deaths worldwide. By March 26, 2020, just 2 weeks later, reported cases had increased four-fold to 531,865, and deaths increased five-fold to 24,073. Older people are both major users of telehealth services and are more likely to die as a result of COVID-19. Objective This paper examines the extent that Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, during the 2 weeks following the pandemic announcement, sought to promote telehealth as a tool that could help identify COVID-19 among older people who may live alone, be frail, or be self-isolating, and give support to or facilitate the treatment of people who are or may be infected. Methods This paper reports, for the 2-week period previously mentioned and immediately prior, on activities and initiatives in the three countries taken by governments or their agencies (at national or state levels) together with publications or guidance issued by professional, trade, and charitable bodies. Different sources of information are drawn upon that point to the perceived likely benefits of telehealth in fighting the pandemic. It is not the purpose of this paper to draw together or analyze information that reflects growing knowledge about COVID-19, except where telehealth is seen as a component. Results The picture that emerges for the three countries, based on the sources identified, shows a number of differences. These differences center on the nature of their health services, the extent of attention given to older people (and the circumstances that can relate to them), the different geographies (notably concerned with rurality), and the changes to funding frameworks that could impact these. Common to all three countries is the value attributed to maintaining quality safeguards in the wider context of their health services but where such services are noted as sometimes having precluded significant telehealth use. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing changes and may help to establish telehealth more firmly in its aftermath. Some of the changes may not be long-lasting. However, the momentum is such that telehealth will almost certainly find a stronger place within health service frameworks for each of the three countries and is likely to have increased acceptance among both patients and health care providers.
Objectives: To examine the effect of patients' expectations for medication and doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations on prescribing when patients present with new conditions.
Background Mobile phone applications (apps) have been shown to successfully facilitate the self-management of chronic disease. This study aims to evaluate firstly the experiences, barriers and facilitators to app usage among people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and secondly determine recommendations to improve usage of diabetes apps. Methods Participants were aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of T2DM for ≥ 6 months. Semi-structured phone-interviews were conducted with 16 app and 14 non-app users. Interviews were based on the Technology Acceptance Model, Health Information Technology Acceptance Model (HITAM) and the Mobile Application Rating Scale. Data were analysed using deductive content analysis. Results Most app-users found apps improved their T2DM self-management and health. The recommendation of apps by health professionals, as well as positive interactions with them, improved satisfaction; however, only a minority of patients had practitioners involved in their app use. All non-app users had never had the concept discussed with them by a health professional. Facilitators to app use included the visual representation of trends, intuitive navigation and convenience (for example, discretion and portability). Barriers to app use were participant’s lack of knowledge and awareness of apps as healthcare tools, perceptions of disease severity, technological and health literacy or practical limitations such as rural connectivity. Factors contributing to app use were classified into a framework based on the Health Belief Model and HITAM. Recommendations for future app design centred on educational features, which were currently lacking (e.g. diabetes complications, including organ damage and hypoglycaemic episodes), monitoring and tracking features (e.g. blood glucose level monitoring with trends and dynamic tips and comorbidities) and nutritional features (e.g. carbohydrate counters). Medication reminders were not used by participants. Lastly, participants felt that receiving weekly text-messaging relating to their self-management would be appropriate. Conclusions The incorporation of user-centred features, which engage T2DM consumers in self-management tasks, can improve health outcomes. The findings may guide app developers and entrepreneurs in improving app design and usability. Given self-management is a significant factor in glycaemic control, these findings are significant for GPs, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who may integrate apps into a holistic management plan which considers strategies outside the clinical environment.
BackgroundLow survey response rates in general practice are common and lead to loss of power, selection bias, unexpected budgetary constraints and time delays in research projects.MethodsObjective: To assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies aimed at increasing survey response rates among GPs.Design: Systematic review.Search methods: MEDLINE (OVIDSP, 1948-2012), EMBASE (OVIDSP, 1980-2012), Evidence Based Medicine Reviews (OVIDSP, 2012) and references of included papers were searched. Major search terms included GPs, recruitment strategies, response rates, and randomised controlled trials (RCT).Selection criteria: Cluster RCTs, RCTs and factorial trial designs that evaluate recruitment strategies aimed at increasing GP survey response rates.Data collection and analysis: Abstracts identified by the search strategy were reviewed and relevant articles were retrieved. Each full-text publication was examined to determine whether it met the predetermined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and study quality was assessed by using predetermined checklists.ResultsMonetary and nonmonetary incentives were more effective than no incentive with monetary incentives having a slightly bigger effect than nonmonetary incentives. Large incentives were more effective than small incentives, as were upfront monetary incentives compared to promised monetary incentives. Postal surveys were more effective than telephone or email surveys. One study demonstrated that sequentially mixed mode (online survey followed by a paper survey with a reminder) was more effective than an online survey or the combination of an online and paper survey sent similtaneously in the first mail out. Pre-contact with a phonecall from a peer, personalised packages, sending mail on Friday, and using registered mail also increased response rates in single studies. Pre-contact by letter or postcard almost reached statistical signficance.ConclusionsGP survey response rates may improve by using the following strategies: monetary and nonmonetary incentives, larger incentives, upfront monetary incentives, postal surveys, pre-contact with a phonecall from a peer, personalised packages, sending mail on Friday, and using registered mail. Mail pre-contact may also improve response rates and have low costs. Improved reporting and further trials, including sequential mixed mode trials and social media, are required to determine the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on GPs' response rates to surveys.
Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of an educational Quality Use of Medicines program, delivered at the level of general practice, on medicines use, falls and quality of life in people aged у 65 years. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 2002. Setting: General practices in the Hunter Region, New South Wales, Australia. Participants: Twenty general practitioners recruited 849 patients to participate in the study. Intervention: Education (academic detailing, provision of prescribing information and feedback); medication risk assessment; facilitation of medication review; financial incentives. Main outcome measures: Primary measures: a composite score reflecting use of benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and thiazide diuretics; secondary measures: use of medication reviews, occurrence of falls, quality of life (as assessed by SF-12 and EQ-5D survey scores. Results: Compared with the control group, participants in the intervention group had increased odds of having an improved medication use composite score (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.21-2.85) at 4-month follow-up but not at 12 months. At 4-month followup, the intervention group had reduced odds of using NSAIDs (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.99) and showed a non-significant reduction in use of benzodiazepines (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.30) and thiazide diuretics (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.01). Changes in drug use were not significant at 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, intervention-group participants had lower adjusted ORs (AORs) for having a fall (AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91), injury (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.96), and injury requiring medical attention (AOR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70). Quality-of-life scores were unaffected by the intervention. Conclusion: Education and systems for medication review conducted by GPs can be used to improve use of medicines. These interventions are associated with a reduction in MJA 2007; 187: 23-30 falls among older people, without adverse effects on quality of life.
Objective: The aim of this study was to profile students undertaking placements at University Departments of Rural Health (UDRHs) and investigate factors affecting students' satisfaction and intention to enter rural practice. Design: Cross-sectional survey comprising 21 core questions used by all UDRHs. Setting: Eleven UDRHs across Australia that support students' placements in regional, rural and remote locations. Participants: Medical, nursing and allied health students who participated in UDRH placements between July 2014 and November 2015 and completed the questionnaire. Main outcome measures: Key dependent variables were placement satisfaction and rural practice intention. Descriptive variables were age, gender, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) background, location of placement, healthcare discipline, year of study and type and length of placement. Results: A total of 3328 students responded. The sample was predominantly female (79%), the mean age was 26.0 years and 1.8% identified as ATSI. Most placements (69%) were >2 but ≤12 weeks, 80% were in Modified Monash 3, 4 or 5 geographical locations. Public hospitals and community health made up 63% of placements. Students satisfied with their placement had 2.33 higher odds of rural practice intention. Those satisfied with Indigenous cultural training, workplace supervision, access to education resources and accommodation had higher odds of overall satisfaction and post-placement rural practice intention. Conclusions: The majority of students were highly satisfied with their placement and the support provided by rural clinicians and the UDRHs. UDRHs are well placed to provide health professional students with highly satisfactory placements that foster rural practice intention.
BackgroundDrug checking is a harm reduction strategy which allows users to check the content and purity of illicit drugs. Although drug checking has been trialled internationally, with demonstrated value as a harm reduction and health promotion strategy, the use of such services in Australia remains a contentious issue.This study aimed to investigate the proportion and patterns of illicit drug use among young people, their attitudes towards drug checking at festivals and the potential impact of drug checking on intended drug use behaviour.MethodsThe survey was conducted at a major Australian music festival in 2016. Data was collected from a sample of festival attendees (n = 642) aged between 18 and 30 years. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed.ResultsNearly three-quarters (73.4%) of participants reported that they had used illicit drugs in the past 12 months, most commonly cannabis (63.9%) and ecstasy (59.8%). A large proportion of participants believed ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’ that drug checking services could help users seek help to reduce harm (86.5%) and that drug checking services should be combined with harm reduction advice (84.9%). However, two thirds of the participants agreed ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’ that drug sellers may use this service as a quality control mechanism (68.6%). Approximately half (54.4%) indicated they would be highly likely and a third (32.7%) would be somewhat likely to utilise free drug checking services should they be available at music festivals. When asked whether the results of drug checking would influence their drug use behaviour, participants reported that they would not take substances shown to contain methamphetamine (65.1%), ketamine (57.5%) or para-methoxyamphetamine (PMA) (58.4%).ConclusionThe majority of festival attendees aged 18–30 participating in this study reported a history of illicit drug use and were in favour of the provision of free drug checking at festivals. A considerable proportion reported that the results of drug checking would influence their drug use behaviour. The findings of this study can contribute to the debate regarding whether drug checking services could potentially play a major role in harm reduction and health promotion programming for young people attending festivals.
IntroductionHealth workforce shortages have driven the Australian and other Western governments to invest in engaging more health professional students in rural and remote placements. The aim of this qualitative study was to provide an understanding of the lived experiences of students undertaking placements in various nonmetropolitan locations across Australia. In addition to providing their suggestions to improve rural placements, the study provides insight into factors contributing to positive and negative experiences that influence students’ future rural practice intentions.MethodsResponses to open-ended survey questions from 3,204 students from multiple health professions and universities were analyzed using two independent methods applied concurrently: manual thematic analysis and computerized content analysis using Leximancer software.ResultsThe core concept identified from the thematic analysis was “ruralization of students’ horizons,” a construct representing the importance of preparing health professional students for practice in nonmetropolitan locations. Ruralization embodies three interrelated themes, “preparation and support,” “rural or remote health experience,” and “rural lifestyle and socialization,” each of which includes multiple subthemes. From the content analysis, factors that promoted students’ rural practice intentions were having a “positive” practice experience, interactions with “supportive staff,” and interactions with the “community” in general. It was apparent that “difficulties,” eg, with “accommodation,” “Internet” access, “transport,” and “financial” support, negatively impacted students’ placement experience and rural practice intentions.ConclusionsThe study findings have policy and practice implications for continuing to support students undertaking regional, rural, and remote placements and preparing them for future practice in nonmetropolitan locations. This study may, therefore, further inform ongoing strategies for improving rural placement experiences and enhancing rural health workforce recruitment, retention, and capacity building.
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.