Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.

ABSTRACT: Complementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.To assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.The cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.Factors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.The questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals' opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses' and midwives' opinion compared to physicians' (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35-4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95-7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92-3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33-0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.Different professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Aveni E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5621686 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.

Aveni Eleonore E Bauer Brent B Ramelet Anne-Sylvie AS Decosterd Isabelle I Ballabeni Pierluigi P Bonvin Eric E Rodondi Pierre-Yves PY

PloS one 20170929 9

<h4>Background</h4>Complementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.<h4>Design and participants</h4>The cross-sectional web-based surve ...[more]

PMID: 28961256

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of CAM use is increasing. This integrative review investigated New Zealand healthcare professionals' practice of, attitudes toward, and knowledge about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).MethodsLiterature search was conducted in four databases from inception to April 2020. Studies were included if they reported results from primary data collection on practice of, attitudes toward, or knowledge about CAM amongst New Zealand healthcare professionals.ResultsEleven studies (two of 'high-quality', seven of 'moderate-quality', and two of 'low-quality') were identified with 2060 healthcare professionals including general practitioners (GPs), nurses, midwives, pharmacists, physiotherapists, and medical specialists. New Zealand healthcare professionals were generally positive regarding CAM use, but have concerns on the scientific evidence, regulation, safety, financial costs of CAM, and encourage an evidence-based CAM practice and stronger CAM regulation. Findings indicated that around 25% of GPs practise CAM, and 82.3% refer patients to CAM practitioners. When treating pregnant women, 48.4% of physiotherapists practise acupuncture, and 37.3% of midwives recommend CAM. GPs believe that acupuncture is the most helpful CAM modality, and most commonly practiced and referred patients to acupuncture. Up to 58% of GPs and Plunket nurses wanted to receive further education on CAM, and up to 66.7% GPs favour the idea CAM should be included in medical curriculums.ConclusionsNine of the 11 included studies were of moderate to high quality, thus enhancing the reliability of the review findings. In order to better manage CAM in New Zealand New Zealand clinical settings, there is a need to invest in CAM research and education, and enhance CAM regulation. This review is a first step in developing an evidence base to offer insights for further development of effective CAM policies regarding safety, efficacy, regulation and integration in New Zealand.

Project description:BackgroundThere are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards.MethodsTen databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework.ResultsOf the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic.ConclusionsSeveral overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care.AimTo assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions.MethodAn ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses.ResultsFive Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration.ConclusionsThis survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided.Trial registrationNot registered.

Project description:IntroductionThere is inadequate evidence to recommend the use of any traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) methods such as vitamin, mineral, herbal or other dietary supplements to prevent or treat COVID 19. Members of the medical team are particularly at risk of exposure to high viral load of coronavirus. They have also the best access to professional information regarding disease treatment and prophylaxis and disseminate such knowledge. The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of use of T&CM for the prophylaxis of COVID 19 among the healthcare professionals and students in Jordan, along with the most common types and the factors associated with T&CM use.MethodologyA cross-sectional study of T&CM use was conducted in Jordan using a snowball sampling method to distribute Google Forms and to enrol participants during coronavirus outbreak between June 10, 2021, and August 28, 2021. The study included healthcare professionals or students who consented to participate in the survey. The survey excluded those participants who had filled the questionnaire at least once or were pregnant/breast-feeding at the time of the study. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items, including screening, checkbox, dichotomous, matrix and open-ended questions.ResultsThe response rate was 97.1%. Out of 560 study respondents, 359 (64.1%) reported using T&CM for COVID 19 prevention. Vitamins and nutrients were consumed by almost half (48.4%) of study participants, while nonpharmacological methods and herbal remedies were consumed by 35.2% and 25.2%, respectively. The most common source of information regarding T&CM use for COVID 19 prophylaxis included scientific publications (59.5%), followed by disease treatment guidelines (38.0%) and social media (32.3%). Adverse effects were reported by 8.5% and possible adverse effects were reported by another 8.5% of participants. The T&CM use was associated with working in contact with COVID 19 patients (OR: 1.625 (95% CI 1.047-2.523) (P = 0.03) and having a colleague as a source of information (OR: 1.720 (95% CI 1.026-2.883) (P = 0.04).ConclusionsThe prevalence of T&CM use for COVID 19 prevention among healthcare professionals and students in Jordan is high, with a significant proportion of participants reporting adverse effects. There is an urgent need for further research toward efficacy and safety of T&CM in COVID 19 prophylaxis as well as development of appropriate public health policy on this issue specific to each country.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of medical radiation in diagnosis and procedural and surgical treatment is increasing. Therefore, healthcare personnel should be adequately aware and knowledgeable about radiation hazards to protect themselves and their patients from its adverse effects. The objective of this study was to examine awareness about radiation hazards and knowledge about protection methods among the anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists of a quaternary care academic center.MethodsA validated questionnaire was completed by anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists. It consisted of questions that required demographic information and assessed awareness about radiation hazards. In addition, 15 multiple-choice questions assessed knowledge about radiation across the following domains: the main principle of radiation protection, personal annual radiation dose, personal protection equipment, safe distance from an X-ray machine, and susceptible organs.ResultsA total of 270 potential participants were emailed and invited to respond to an online questionnaire, and the response rate was 79.3%. Of the 214 participants, 69.2% were women; the mean age of the sample was 34.8 years. Most of the participants (63.1%) considered radiation exposure that occurs as a part of daily work to be very harmful; 86.4% and 78.5% reported that they always wore a lead apron and a thyroid shield when working in an environment that entails radiation exposure, respectively. The mean score for knowledge about radiation hazards and protection was 6.4 ± 2.0 (maximum possible score = 15) Therefore, there is a need to improve anesthetic personnel and surgical subspecialists' knowledge about radiation protection, especially with regard to the use of lead goggles and harmful doses of radiation.ConclusionThe present findings suggest that there is a reasonable level of awareness but a relative lack of knowledge about radiation hazards and protection among anesthesia personnel and surgical subspecialists. Therefore, continuing medical education on radiation hazards and protection must be mandated.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals outside of medicine (HCPs), including nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, are increasingly involved in research for patient benefit. Their challenge is to negotiate inter-professional or professionally isolated contexts. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 'Healthcare Professionals in Research' (HPiR) Facebook group (a self-directed and confidential peer support group for doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs) including engagement, the experiences of doctoral and postdoctoral HPiR members and to identify future career challenges using an on-line survey.MethodsThe HPiR Facebook group was launched in May 2019. Five HCP Community managers (CMs) were trained in on-line platform curation, moderation and screening. An on-line survey was designed to capture data from HPiR members. A purposive sampling approach was applied. Respondents were required to be doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs and a registered member of the HPiR group. Respondents represented a range of healthcare professions, 79 % of whom had over ten years clinical experience. Membership growth and engagement was analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to present numerical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.Results96 members were admitted to the group within the first month. All members were actively engaged with group content. 34/96 doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs completed the survey. Most members joined for networking (88 %) and peer support (82 %) purposes. Analysis of text responses showed difficulties in balancing a clinical academic career and highlighted the consequences of undefined clinical academic roles and pathways.ConclusionsDoctoral and postdoctoral HCPs value the opportunities that HPiR provides for peer support and connection with fellow HCPs. HPiR has the potential to strengthen research capacity, support research skill development and drive change within the clinical academic community. Clinical academic roles and pathways need to be standardised. The creation of opportunities beyond doctoral studies is a priority.

Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.

Publications

Healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets