Dataset Information

Understanding perceptions of global healthcare experiences on provider values and practices in the USA: a qualitative study among global health physicians and program directors.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The study aimed to qualitatively examine the perspectives of US-based physicians and academic global health programme leaders on how global health work shapes their viewpoints, values and healthcare practices back in the USA.

Design

A prospective, qualitative exploratory study that employed online questionnaires and open-ended, semi-structured interviews with two participant groups: (1) global health physicians and (2) global health programme leaders affiliated with USA-based academic medical centres. Open coding procedures and thematic content analysis were used to analyse data and derive themes for discussion.

Participants

159 global health physicians and global health programme leaders at 25 academic medical institutions were invited via email to take a survey and participate in a follow-up interview. Twelve participants completed online questionnaires (7.5% response rate) and eight participants (four survey participants and four additionally recruited participants) participated in in-depth, in-person or phone semi-structured interviews.

Results

Five themes emerged that highlight how global health physicians and academic global health programme leaders perceive global health work abroad in shaping USA-based medical practices: (1) a sense of improved patient rapport, particularly with low-income, refugee and immigrant patients, and improved and more engaged patient care; (2) reduced spending on healthcare services; (3) greater awareness of the social determinants of health; (4) deeper understanding of the USA's healthcare system compared with systems in other countries; and (5) a reinforcement of values that initially motivated physicians to pursue work in global health.

Conclusions

A majority of participating global health physicians and programme leaders believed that international engagements improved patient care back in the USA. Participant responses relating to the five themes were contextualised by highlighting factors that simultaneously impinge on their ability to provide improved patient care, such as the social determinants of health, and the challenges of changing USA healthcare policy.

SUBMITTER: Matthews-Trigg N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500299 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding perceptions of global healthcare experiences on provider values and practices in the USA: a qualitative study among global health physicians and program directors.

Matthews-Trigg Nathaniel N Citrin David D Halliday Scott S Acharya Bibhav B Maru Sheela S Bezruchka Stephen S Maru Duncan D

BMJ open 20190403 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>The study aimed to qualitatively examine the perspectives of US-based physicians and academic global health programme leaders on how global health work shapes their viewpoints, values and healthcare practices back in the USA.<h4>Design</h4>A prospective, qualitative exploratory study that employed online questionnaires and open-ended, semi-structured interviews with two participant groups: (1) global health physicians and (2) global health programme leaders affiliated with USA ...[more]

PMID: 30948593

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMolecular oncology testing (MOT) to detect genomic alterations underlying cancer holds promise for improved cancer care. Yet knowledge limitations regarding the delivery of testing services may constrain the translation of scientific advancements into effective health care.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered, postal survey of active cancer physicians in Ontario, Canada (N = 611) likely to order MOT, and cancer laboratories (N = 99) likely to refer (i.e., referring laboratories) or conduct (i.e., testing laboratories) MOT in 2006, to assess respondents' perceptions of the importance and accessibility of MOT and their preparedness to provide it.Results54% of physicians, 63% of testing laboratories and 60% of referring laboratories responded. Most perceived MOT to be important for treatment, diagnosis or prognosis now, and in 5 years (61% - 100%). Yet only 45% of physicians, 59% of testing labs and 53% of referring labs agreed that patients in their region were receiving MOT that is indicated as a standard of care. Physicians and laboratories perceived various barriers to providing MOT, including, among 70% of physicians, a lack of clear guidelines regarding clinical indications, and among laboratories, a lack of funding (73% - 100%). Testing laboratories were confident of their ability to determine whether and which MOT was indicated (77% and 82% respectively), and perceived that key elements of formal and continuing education were helpful (75% - 100%). By contrast, minorities of physicians were confident of their ability to assess whether and which MOT was indicated (46% and 34% respectively), and while majorities considered various continuing educational resources helpful (68% - 75%), only minorities considered key elements of formal education helpful in preparing for MOT (17% - 43%).ConclusionPhysicians and laboratory professionals were enthusiastic about the value of MOT for cancer care but most did not believe patients were gaining adequate access to clinically necessary testing. Further, our results suggest that many were ill equipped as individual stakeholders, or as a coordinated system of referral and interpretation, to provide MOT. These challenges should inspire educational, training and other interventions to ensure that developments in molecular oncology can result in optimal cancer care.

Project description:BackgroundLimited reports addressing physicians' understanding of the various low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets/statin intensity required for treating the various dyslipidemia patient populations in Saudi Arabia are available. Therefore, the current study assessed the perceptions and beliefs of practicing clinicians in Saudi Arabia regarding the current practice for management of dyslipidemia and potential perceived barriers to adherence to lipid guidelines encountered in their regular clinical practice. Knowledge of different clinical practices and beliefs could have a positive impact on improving the quality of future care provided by physicians.MethodsA survey questionnaire was designed to assess physicians' familiarity, usage, and adherence to seven different international guidelines and used to evaluate the management of dyslipidemia, practice of patient treatment, and perceived obstacles to adhering to lipid guidelines related to specific patients, doctors, and practice issues.ResultsA total of 467 physicians were recruited for the study: (1) 57.2% were primary care physicians (PCPs) and (2) 42.8% were specialists. About 90.8% of them followed lipid guidelines of which the most common set were based on those by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. The most utilized risk assessment tool was the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator. About 60% of the physicians set an LDL-C target for their patients based on a combination of patients' risk factors and lipid profiles. In all, 42.1% of the physicians chose not to change existing therapy among patients with dyslipidemia to attain a non-high-density lipoprotein goal with controlled LDL-C level. Atorvastatin accounted for the greatest percentage of primary and secondary prevention choices (71.9% and 69.6%, respectively). Rosuvastatin was mostly preferred by physicians for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. About two-thirds of the physicians (77.9%) prescribed statins to diabetic patients aged 40-75 years. Statin intolerance was encountered by 62.9% of the physicians in ≤ 10% of patients by 62.9%. Therapeutic strategies included switching to an alternative statin (40.1%) followed by reducing the statin dose (35.3%). Ezetimibe was prescribed by most physicians (77.9%) as an add-on to statin if the LDL-C target was not achieved. Fibrate was most preferred by physicians (62.7%) for hypertriglyceremia treatment followed by statins (28.7% of the physicians). Sixty-six percent reported not using proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors in their clinical practice due to unavailability at their institute (51.8%), high costs (26.3%), and/or lack of knowledge (20.6%). Perceived barriers to guideline adherence identified by physicians were lack of familiarity and knowledge of the guidelines, patient non-adherence, medication costs, and lack of timely follow-up appointments and educational tools. Multiple similarities and differences were observed after comparisons were made between specialists and PCPs in terms of guideline preference, clinical practice, and perceived barriers.ConclusionDifferent perceptions and attitudes among physicians in Saudi Arabia were found due to variable recommendations by international lipid guidelines. Perceived barriers that included the patient, physician, and practice were identified by physicians at multiple levels. Multiple challenges and different action gaps were observed when comparing specialists to PCPs. It is recommended that standardized practices be followed by clinicians in Saudi Arabia, and actions to address the outlined barriers are essential for optimizing health outcomes and ASCVD prevention.

Project description:Objectives(1) To explore individual perceptions on experiences of people receiving and/or delivering a shared-care clozapine serviceand (2) to gain an understanding of effectiveness and acceptability of shared-care clozapine.DesignInterpretative phenomenological analysis guided the delivery and analysis of a semistructured interview and focus group study designed to explore participant experience of shared-care clozapine. Ethical approval 13/EM/0286 was gained in July 2013 from East Midlands-Nottingham 1 REC.ParticipantsEight stakeholder groups from Adult and Forensic Mental Health involved in shared-care clozapine provision delivered in primary care were identified for recruitment from one mental health trust in England (six different groups of healthcare professionals (HCPs), clozapine service users (CSUs) and their carers). To be eligible for recruitment, all potential participants had to be either providing, receiving or the carer of a person receiving clozapine by shared care.Results32 HCPs and 6 CSUs were recruited and 14 interviews and 6 participant homogenous focus groups were run. Four shared superordinate themes were identified: Clozapine Process, The Sharing of Care, The Provision of Care and Multi-professional Relationships. Differences between Adult and Forensic engagement in shared care were noted and both HCP and CSU relationships were mapped to the Wish conceptual framework of relationships to provide insight into how shared-care clozapine can provide a mechanism for provision of person-centred care, which was present in the Forensic HCP-CSU but not General Adult HCP-CSU relationship.ConclusionsThe Forensic HCP/CSU relationship demonstrated how cross-sector working through shared-care clozapine can provide a mechanism for provision of person-centred care by enabling a person-centred focus to care delivery which supported CSUs to live as independently as possible. Person-centred care demonstrably improves patient care outcomes and wider implementation of shared-care clozapine could provide greater integration of people with serious mental illness and reduce stigma within the community while improving patient outcomes.

Dataset Information

Understanding perceptions of global healthcare experiences on provider values and practices in the USA: a qualitative study among global health physicians and program directors.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Understanding perceptions of global healthcare experiences on provider values and practices in the USA: a qualitative study among global health physicians and program directors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets