Dataset Information

Experiences of Australian podiatrists working through the 2020 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: an online survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

On the 19th of January, 2020, the Chief Medical Officer of Australia issued a statement about a novel coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2. Since this date, there have been variable jurisdictional responses, including lockdowns, and restrictions on podiatry practice. This study aimed to describe impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the podiatry profession in Australia.

Methods

This was a cross sectional study of Australian podiatrists using demographic data collected between 2017 and 2020, and pandemic-related question responses collected between 30th March and 31st August, 2020. Data were collected online and participants described their work settings, patient funding types, business decisions and impacts, and information sources used to guide practice decisions during this time-period. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse open-ended questions about their practice impact of SARS-CoV-2.

Results

There were 732 survey responses, with 465 Australian podiatrists or podiatric surgeons providing responses describing pandemic impact. From these responses, 223 (49% of 453) podiatrists reported no supply issues, or having adequate supplies for the foreseeable future with personal protective equipment (PPE) or consumables to support effective infection prevention and control. The most frequent responses about employment, or hours of work, impact were reported in the various categories of "business as usual" (n = 312, 67%). Participants described most frequently using the local state and territory Department of Health websites (n = 347, 75%), and the Australian Podiatry Association (n = 334, 72%) to make decisions about their business. Overarching themes which resounded through open-ended comments was that working through the pandemic was likened to a marathon, and not a sprint. Themes were: (i) commitment to do this, (ii) it's all in the plan, but not everything goes to plan, (iii) my support team must be part of getting through it, (iv) road blocks happen, and (v) nothing is easy, what's next?

Conclusion

Podiatrists in Australia reported variable pandemic impact on their business decisions, PPE stores, and their valued sources of information. Podiatrists also described their "marathon" journey through the pandemic to date, with quotes describing their challenges and highlights. Describing these experiences should provide key learnings for future workforce challenges, should further restrictions come into place.

SUBMITTER: Williams CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7856615 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAustralia has had a framework for legal medicinal cannabis since 2016, yet prior online surveys in 2016 and 2018 indicated that most consumers continued to use illicit medical cannabis products. Regulatory data indicate an increase in the prescription of medicinal cannabis since 2019, and this survey examines consumer experiences of prescribed and illicit medical cannabis (MC) use in Australia.MethodsA cross-sectional anonymous online survey was administered September 2020 to January 2021. Recruitment via social media, professional and consumer forums, and medical practices. Participant eligibility: ≥ 18 years; used a cannabis product for self-identified medical reason(s) in the past year, and resident in Australia. Outcome measures included consumer characteristics, conditions treated, source and patterns of MC use, and perspectives on accessing MC.ResultsOf the 1600 participants (mean age 46.4 ± 14.3 years, 53% male), 62.4% (n = 999) reported using only illicit and 37.6% (n = 601) used prescribed MC in the past year. MC was used on a median of 28 (IQR: 12, 28) of the past 28 days and cost $AUD 74 ± 72 weekly (median = $40, IQR: $7, $100). Prescribed participants were more likely to treat pain conditions than those using illicit MC (52% v 40%, OR = 1.7, 1.3-2.1) and less likely to treat sleep conditions (6% v 11%, OR = 0.5, 0.3-0.8), with mental health conditions also a common indication in both groups (26%, 31%). Prescribed MC was consumed predominately by oral routes (72%), whereas illicit MC was most commonly smoked (41%). Prescribed MC was 'mainly THC' (26%), 'equal THC/CBD' (40%), 'mainly CBD' (31%) and 'uncertain' (3%), while 34% of those using illicit MC were 'uncertain' of the cannabinoid profile. Cost and difficulties finding medical practitioners to prescribe remain significant barriers to accessing prescribed MC, and few (10.8%) described the existing model for accessing prescribed MC as 'straightforward or easy'.ConclusionsThere has been a notable shift from illicit to prescribed MC by many consumers compared to prior surveys. Consumers using prescribed MC reported a range of advantages compared to illicit MC, including safer routes of administration, and greater certainty regarding access and composition of products.

Project description:BackgroundNon-medical prescribing is one healthcare reform strategy that has the potential to create health system savings and offer equitable and timely access to scheduled medicines. Podiatrists are well positioned to create health system efficiencies through prescribing, however, only a small proportion of Australian podiatrists are endorsed to prescribe scheduled medicines. Since scheduled medicines prescribed by Australian podiatrists are not subsidised by the Government, there is a lack of data available on the prescribing practices of Australian podiatrists. The aim of this research was to investigate the prescribing practices among Australian podiatrists and to explore barriers and facilitators that influence participation in endorsement.MethodsParticipants in this quantitative, cross-sectional study were registered and practicing Australian podiatrists who were recruited through a combination of professional networks, social media, and personal contacts. Respondents were invited to complete a customised self-reported online survey, developed using previously published research, research team's expertise, and was piloted with podiatrists. The survey contained three sections: demographic data including clinical experience, questions pertaining to prescribing practices, and barriers and facilitators of the endorsement pathway.ResultsRespondents (n = 225) were predominantly female, aged 25-45, working in the private sector. Approximately one quarter were endorsed (15%) or in training to become endorsed (11%). Of the 168 non-endorsed respondents, 66% reported that they would like to undertake training to become an endorsed prescriber. The most common indications reported for prescribing or recommending medications include nail surgery (71%), foot infections 474 (88%), post-operative pain (67%), and mycosis (95%). The most recommended Schedule 2 medications were ibuprofen, paracetamol, and topical terbinafine. The most prescribed Schedule 4 medicines among endorsed podiatrists included lignocaine (84%), cephalexin (68%), flucloxacillin (68%), and amoxicillin with clavulanic acid (61%).ConclusionPodiatrists predominantly prescribe scheduled medicines to assist pain, inflammatory, or infectious conditions. Only a small proportion of scheduled medicines available for prescription by podiatrists with endorsed status were reportedly prescribed. Many barriers exist in the current endorsement for podiatrists, particularly related to training processes, including mentor access and supervised practice opportunities. Suggestions to address these barriers require targeted enabling strategies.

Project description:BackgroundEligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed.MethodsOur survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes.ResultsA total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process.ConclusionsOur survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria.