Background In Canada, one in three adults or almost 9 million people report having a chronic condition. Over two thirds of total deaths result from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and respiratory illness and 77% of persons ≥65 years have at least one chronic condition. Persons with chronic disease are at risk for functional decline; as a result, there is an increased awareness of the significance of functional status as an important health outcome. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients who receive a multi-component rehabilitation intervention, including online monitoring of function with feedback and self-management workshops, showed less functional decline than case matched controls who did not receive this intervention. In addition, we wanted to determine whether capacity building initiatives within the Family Health Team promote a collaborative approach to Chronic Disease Management. Methods A population-based multi-component rehabilitation intervention delivered to persons with chronic illnesses (≥ 44 yrs) (n = 60) was compared to a group of age and sex matched controls (n = 60) with chronic illnesses receiving usual care within a primary healthcare setting. The population-based intervention consisted of four main components: (1) function-based individual assessment and action planning, (2) rehabilitation self-management workshops, (3) on-line self-assessment of function and (4) organizational capacity building. T-tests and chi-square tests were used for continuous and categorical variables respectively in baseline comparison between groups. Results Two MANOVA showed significant between group differences in patient reported physical functioning (Λ = 0.88, F = (2.86) = 5.97. p = 0.004) and for the physical performance measures collectively as the dependent variable (Λ = 0.80, F = (6.93) = 3.68. p = 0.0025). There were no within group differences for the capacity measures. Conclusion It is feasible to monitor physical functioning as a health outcome for persons with chronic illness in primary care. The timeline for this study was not sufficient to show an increase in the capacity within the team; however there were some differences in patient outcomes. The short timeline was likely not sufficient to build the capacity required to support this approach. Trial registration NCT00859638
Interprofessional learning improves students' clinical and interprofessional competencies. COVID‐19 prevented delivering in‐person education and motivated the development of a virtual interprofessional cadaveric dissection (ICD) course. This study reports on the effects of a virtual ICD course compared to a previously delivered in‐person course, on students' readiness for, and perceptions about, interprofessional learning. Students attending the ICD course in‐person (2019–2020) or virtually (2020–2021) completed the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS). Students in the virtual course also provided written feedback. Thirty‐two (24 women; Median: 24 [Q1‐Q3: 22–25] years) and 23 students (18 women; 22 [21–23] years) attended the in‐person and virtual courses, respectively. In the virtual cohort, the RIPLS total score (82 [76–87] vs. 85 [78–90]; p = 0.034) and the roles and responsibilities sub‐score (11 [9–12] vs. 12 [11–13]; p = 0.001) improved significantly. In the in‐person cohort, the roles and responsibilities sub‐score improved significantly (12 [10–14] vs. 13 [11–14]; p = 0.017). No significant differences were observed between cohorts (p < 0.05). Themes identified in the qualitative analysis were advantages and positive experiences, competencies acquired, disadvantages and challenges, and preferences and suggestions. In‐person and virtual ICD courses seem to have similar effects on students' interprofessional learning. However, students reported preferring the in‐person setting for learning anatomy‐dissection skills.
Background: Virtual interprofessional education (IPE) has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional in-person IPE. However, theoretical frameworks to support virtual interprofessional learning are not well established. Two theoretical frameworks emerged as relevant to virtual IPE: (1) the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) interprofessional learning framework and (2) Dornan's Experience-Based Learning Model (ExBL) of workplace learning. In this study, we sought to explore virtual IPE using both frameworks to develop new theoretical understandings and identify assumptions, gaps and barriers.Methods: This was a qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with medical and nursing student participants (n = 14) and facilitators (n = 3) from virtual IPE workshops. Transcripts were analysed using directed content analysis methodology, informed by the CIHC and ExBL frameworks. Themes were explored using mind-mapping transitional coding. Data collection and analysis were continued iteratively until themes with adequate conceptual depth, relevance and plausibility were identified.Results: Three themes were identified: (1) a shift in the balance of personal and professional, (2) blunted sociologic fidelity and (3) uncertainty and threats to interpersonal connections. Professional distinctions and hierarchies are blurred virtually. This contributed to an increased sense of psychological safety among most learners and lowered the threshold for participation. Separation from workplace sociologic complexity facilitated communication and role clarification objectives. However, loss of immersion may limit deeper engagement. Interprofessional objectives that rely on deeper sociological fidelity, such as conflict resolution, may be threatened. Informal interactions between learners are hindered, which may threaten organic development of interprofessional relationships.Conclusions: Role clarification and communication objectives are preserved in virtual IPE. Educators should pay close attention to psychological safety and sociologic fidelity-both to leverage advantages and guard against threats to connection and transferability. Virtual IPE may be well suited as a primer to in-person activities or as scaffolding towards interprofessional workplace practice.
Purpose: This study describes (1) the current state of physiotherapy practice in team-based primary care organizations in Ontario, (2) the perceived barriers to and facilitators of providing physiotherapy services, and (3) recommendations for improving how these services are provided. Method: This was a cross-sectional, web-based survey. We analyzed the responses using descriptive statistics and summative content analysis. Results: A total of 66 responses were received, and 61 were included in the final analysis. The respondents reported that most of their practice was directed toward musculoskeletal care, followed by multi-system, neurological, and cardiorespiratory conditions, and that most of their direct patient care was focused on in-person, one-to-one assessment or follow-up. Frequently identified barriers to providing physiotherapy services included a lack of space, resources, time, and equipment. The most common facilitators were support from management, recognition and support from other health care providers about the value and role of physiotherapists, and appropriate referrals from other health care providers. The most common recommendation was to increase the physiotherapist-to-patient ratio at primary care sites. Conclusions: Physiotherapists provide care to diverse populations in team-based primary care, which is influenced by specific barriers and facilitators. Our results highlight opportunities for physiotherapists in this context, such as increasing the provision of first-contact care and group-based interventions.
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.