Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of "quality" data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectional survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hearnshaw SA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1950092 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe demand for aesthetic procedures continues to grow globally, particularly in East Asian countries. The popularity of specific aesthetic procedures varies, however, depending on the particular East Asian geographical region being studied. This study aimed to evaluate the experiences of and attitudes toward aesthetic procedures in five East Asian countries/regions, including China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.MethodsTo recruit participants, an online questionnaire was designed and distributed on social media networks between May 2015 and March 2016. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software, version 22.0.ResultsA total of 3,088 people responded (approximately 600 in each country/region). Of these, 940 participants (47.8%) responded that they had experienced at least one aesthetic procedure in the past. Taiwan had the highest number of participants who had experienced at least one procedure (264/940, 41%), with primarily non-surgical experiences. Only in South Korea did surgical cosmetic experiences exceed non-surgical cosmetic experiences (55.9% vs. 44.1%). The popularity of particular procedures and the motivation for undergoing aesthetic procedures varied by country.ConclusionsThe popularity of aesthetic procedures continues to evolve. Similar trends were observed across the East Asian regions; however, each country had its unique demands and preferences. The information provided by this study can help aesthetic plastic surgeons further understand the patients in their corresponding region, customize their practice, and develop the requisite skills.
| S-EPMC8627936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.
| S-EPMC10512846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal application of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in the prehospital setting continues to be debated. Few studies have examined how changing guidelines have been received and interpreted by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. This study surveys paramedics' attitudes, observations, and self-reported practices around the treatment of potential spine injuries in the prehospital setting.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey of a North American EMS agency. After development and piloting, the final version of the survey contained four sections covering attitudes towards 1) general practice, 2) specific techniques, 3) assessment protocols, and 4) mechanisms of injury (MOI). Questions used Likert-scale, multiple-choice, yes/no, and free-text responses. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify latent constructs within responses, and factor scores were analyzed by ordinal logistic regression for associations with demographic characteristics (including qualification level, gender, and years of experience). MOI evaluations were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Inductive qualitative content analysis, following Elo & Kyngäs (2008), was used to examine free-text responses.ResultsTwo hundred twenty responses were received (36% of staff). Raw results indicated that respondents felt that SMR was seen as less important than in the past, that they were treating fewer patients than previously, and that they follow protocol in most situations. The EFA identified two factors: one (Judging MOIs) captured paramedics' estimation that the presented MOI could potentially cause a spine injury, and another (Treatment Value) reflected respondents' composite view of the effectiveness, importance, and applicability of SMR. Respondents with advanced life support (ALS) qualification were more likely to be skeptical of the value of SMR compared to those at the basic life support (BLS) level (OR: 2.40, 95%CI: 1.21-4.76, p = 0.01). Overall, respondents showed fair agreement in the evaluation of MOIs (k = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.09-0.49). Content analysis identified tension expressed by respondents between SMR-as-directed and SMR-as-applied.ConclusionResults of this survey show that EMS personnel are skeptical of many elements of SMR but use various strategies to balance protocol adherence with optimizing patient care. While identifying several areas for future research, these findings argue for incorporating provider feedback and judgement into future guideline revision.
| S-EPMC9487099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the levels of awareness, usage, and knowledge of biosimilars among patients, caregivers, and the general population in the US and the European Union; perceptions of biosimilars compared to originator biologics; perceived benefits and drawbacks of clinical trials; and whether advocacy groups impact patients' willingness to try a biosimilar.MethodsAn international survey was conducted which contained up to 56 closed-ended (requiring yes/no or ranking answers) and open-ended questions, depending on the population assigned. The survey was divided into distinct sections, including medication-class awareness, usage, and knowledge about biologic and biosimilar therapies; perceptions of clinical trials; and involvement in advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted in adults categorized as: 1) diagnosed: patients with inflammatory bowel disease including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; 2) diagnosed advocacy: individuals with these diseases who participated in patient support groups; 3) caregiver: has a loved one with these conditions and is involved in medical decisions; 4) general population: aged 18-64 years, without these conditions. Statistical analyses among groups within a region (US or EU) used column proportions test with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsIn all, 3,198 individuals responded. Awareness about biologic therapies was significantly higher in diagnosed, diagnosed advocacy, and caregiver groups (45%-78%) versus general population (27%; P<0.05). Across all groups, awareness of biosimilars was low; only 6% of the general population reported at least a general impression of biosimilars. Awareness was significantly higher in the diagnosed advocacy group (20%-30%; P<0.05). Gaps in knowledge about biosimilars included safety, efficacy, and access to these agents. Respondents had generally positive perceptions of clinical trials, although barriers to participation were identified.ConclusionAn immediate need exists for patient education about biosimilars and clinical trials to ensure educated and informed decisions are made about biosimilar use.
| S-EPMC4889091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.ObjectiveThis study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants' willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants' demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).ResultsThe sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants' willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).ConclusionsThis study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.
| S-EPMC8590194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) regarding the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among patients and their attendants visiting the gynaecologic oncology outpatient department (OPD) and to assess the factors associated with a KAP score.MethodologyA KAP cross-sectional survey was conducted over three months exploring KAP relevant to COVID-19. Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare the differences in knowledge, attitude and practice by demographic characteristics. Correlation between knowledge, attitude and practice was done using Spearman's rank correlation test. Binary logistic regression analyses were applied to identify possible determinants of good knowledge, attitude and practice.ResultsA total of 521 completed questionnaires were included. The study revealed an overall good knowledge (16.09/20), attitude (8.34/10) and practice (12.73/14) scores. Education status, standard of living (rural/urban) and economic status determined an adequate overall knowledge, attitude and practice score, while an adequate practice score varied significantly by standard of living and education status. Significant positive linear correlations were found between knowledge-attitude (r = 0.513), knowledge-practice (r = 0.407) and attitude-practice (r = 0.407).ConclusionThe study demonstrated good overall knowledge, attitude and practices towards COVID-19 pandemic among gynaecological oncology OPD patients and their attendants.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40944-022-00624-1.
| S-EPMC9011372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research and public interest in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) are growing. This study investigated attitudes toward psychedelics among a diverse and multinational sample of psychiatrists currently working in Europe. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey consisting of demographic information, a test of basic knowledge on psychedelics, and the previously validated 20-item Attitudes on Psychedelics Questionnaire (APQ), which was validated for the first time in English within this sample. We included N = 419 participants from 33 countries in the study. One-third of participants (34%) reported past use of psychedelics. The APQ sub-scale with the highest score was Openness to Psychedelics, while Risk Assessment of Psychedelics was rated lowest. Regression modelling, explaining 31.3% of variance in APQ scores, showed that younger male psychiatrists who identified as spiritual, were better at recognizing and classifying substances as psychedelics and had previously used psychedelics had more positive attitudes on psychedelics. No professional variables besides self-reported previous experience with PAP or psychedelic research predicted APQ scores. European psychiatrists, therefore, show a general openness to psychedelics and PAP, but are concerned by the potential risks associated with them. Our findings overall suggest that psychedelics are a subject where it is difficult to remain impartial. Protocol registration: The study was pre-registered at the Open Science Framework (available online at https://osf.io/upkv3 ).
| S-EPMC11319490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal disorders are a major burden on individuals, health systems and social care systems and rehabilitation efforts in these disorders are considerable. Self-care is often considered a cost effective treatment alternative owing to limited health care resources. But what are the expectations and attitudes in this question in the general population? The purpose of this study was to describe general attitudes to responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders and to explore associations between attitudes and background variables.MethodsA cross-sectional, postal questionnaire survey was carried out with a random sample of a general adult Swedish population of 1770 persons. Sixty-one percent (n = 1082) responded to the questionnaire and was included for the description of general attitudes towards responsibility for the management of musculoskeletal disorders. For the further analyses of associations to background variables 683-693 individuals could be included. Attitudes were measured by the "Attitudes regarding Responsibility for Musculoskeletal disorders" (ARM) instrument, where responsibility is attributed on four dimensions; to myself, as being out of my hands, to employers or to (medical) professionals. Multiple logistic regression was used to explore associations between attitudes to musculoskeletal disorders and the background variables age, sex, education, physical activity, presence of musculoskeletal disorders, sick leave and whether the person had visited a care provider.ResultsA majority of participants had internal views, i.e. showed an attitude of taking personal responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders, and did not place responsibility for the management out of their own hands or to employers. However, attributing shared responsibility between self and medical professionals was also found. The main associations found between attitude towards responsibility for musculoskeletal disorders and investigated background variables were that physical inactivity (OR 2.92-9.20), musculoskeletal disorder related sick leave (OR 2.31-3.07) and no education beyond the compulsory level (OR 3.12-4.76) increased the odds of attributing responsibility externally, i.e placing responsibility on someone or something else.ConclusionRespondents in this study mainly saw themselves as responsible for managing musculoskeletal disorders. The associated background variables refined this finding and one conclusion is that, to optimise outcome when planning the prevention, treatment and management of these disorders, people's attitudes should be taken into account.
| S-EPMC2533659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDementia is often underdiagnosed in general practice, which may be based on general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge and emotional factors as well as external problems. This study aimed to describe GPs' attitudes toward early diagnosis of dementia.MethodsCross-sectional postal survey in Switzerland in 2017. Members of the Swiss Association of General Practitioners (N = 4460) were asked to participate in the survey. The questionnaire assessed attitudes, enablers and barriers to early dementia diagnosis and post-diagnostic intervention strategies. Exploratory factor analysis and linear regression were used.ResultsThe survey response rate was 21%. 85% of GPs agreed with enablers of early dementia recognition (e.g. "Plan for the future, organize support and care", "Minimize the strain and insecurity of patients and their informal family caregivers"). On the other hand, 15% of respondents perceived barriers towards early dementia recognition (e.g. "Time constraints in carrying out the necessary procedures to diagnose dementia"). GPs who were more likely to agree with barriers would less often counsel family members (β = - 0.05, 95% CI = - 0.09 - -0.02) or test fitness to drive (β = - 0.05, 95% CI = - 0.09 - -0.02), and more often choose a watchful waiting strategy (β = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.02-0.09).ConclusionsThe attitude of the majority of GPs is not characterized by diagnostic and therapeutic nihilism. However, negative attitudes were associated with sub-optimal management after the diagnosis. Thus, health systems are required to critically examine the use of available resources allowing GPs to look after patients and their relatives in a holistic way.
| S-EPMC6528190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany primary care patients receive both medical and chiropractic care; however, interprofessional relations between physicians and chiropractors are often suboptimal which may adversely affect care of shared patients. We surveyed Canadian family physicians in 2010 to explore their attitudes towards chiropractic and re-administered the same survey a decade later to explore for changes in attitudes.MethodsA 50-item survey administered to a random sample of Canadian family physicians in 2010, and again in 2019, that inquired about demographic variables, knowledge and use of chiropractic. Imbedded in our survey was a 20-item chiropractic attitude questionnaire (CAQ); scores could range from 0 to 80 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward chiropractic. We constructed a multivariable regression model to explore factors associated with CAQ scores.ResultsAmong eligible physicians, 251 of 685 in 2010 (37% response rate) and 162 of 2429 in 2019 (7% response rate) provided a completed survey. Approximately half of respondents (48%) endorsed a positive impression of chiropractic, 27% were uncertain, and 25% held negative views. Most respondents (72%) referred at least some patients for chiropractic care, mainly due to patient request or lack of response to medical care. Most physicians believed that chiropractors provide effective therapy for some musculoskeletal complaints (84%) and disagreed that chiropractic care was beneficial for non-musculoskeletal conditions (77%). The majority agreed that chiropractic care was a useful supplement to conventional care (65%) but most respondents (59%) also indicated that practice diversity among chiropractors presented a barrier to interprofessional collaboration. In our adjusted regression model, attitudes towards chiropractic showed trivial improvement from 2010 to 2019 (0.31 points on the 80-point CAQ; 95%CI 0.001 to 0.62). More negative attitudes were associated with older age (- 1.55 points for each 10-year increment from age 28; 95%CI - 2.67 to - 0.44), belief that adverse events are common with chiropractic care (- 1.41 points; 95% CI - 2.59 to - 0.23) and reported use of the research literature (- 6.04 points; 95% CI - 8.47 to - 3.61) or medical school (- 5.03 points; 95% CI - 7.89 to - 2.18) as sources of knowledge on chiropractic. More positive attitudes were associated with endorsing a relationship with a specific chiropractor (5.24 points; 95% CI 2.85 to 7.64), family and friends (4.06 points; 95% CI 1.53 to 6.60), or personal treatment experience (4.63 points; 95% CI 2.14 to 7.11) as sources of information regarding chiropractic.ConclusionsAlthough generally positive, Canadian family physicians' attitudes towards chiropractic are diverse, and most physicians felt that practice diversity among chiropractors was a barrier to interprofessional collaboration.
| S-EPMC8442384 | biostudies-literature