Dataset Information

Pulmonary rehabilitation in Lebanon "What do we have"? A national survey among chest physicians.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is not very often used by physicians in Lebanon despite evidence on its positive effects on health-related quality of life.

Aim

This study assesses the knowledge, attitudes and practices of PR among physicians in Lebanon. In addition, the study identifies the main barriers to access to PR according to chest physicians. Insight into these issues will help to increase awareness about the need for PR programs and can contribute to designing such programs in the country.

Methods

A survey was conducted during the regional conference of the Lebanese Pulmonary Society. One week after the initial survey, the survey questionnaire was sent by email to all chest physicians who were registered with the Lebanese Pulmonary Society but did not attend the conference. A 25-item questionnaire was used to collect information on PR.

Results

Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The response rate was 40%. Results show that only one-third of Lebanese chest physicians have good knowledge about the nature and multidisciplinary content of PR. Physicians generally support the current "Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program" in Beirut. Key barriers found are the lack of referral, lack of motivation by patients due to their health, cost of care and lack of qualified health care specialists in Lebanon.

Conclusion

Absence of awareness and education about PR among healthcare providers plays an important role in increasing access to the "Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program". Awareness campaigns and education for physicians, health care professionals and patients should be considered to increase PR in the country.

SUBMITTER: Farah R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8277028 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious surveys on the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical representatives (PRs) have been of limited quality. The purpose of our survey of practicing physicians in Japan was to assess the extent of their involvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities, physician characteristics that predict such involvement, attitudes toward relationships with PRs, correlations between the extent of involvement and attitudes, and differences in the extent of involvement according to self-reported prescribing behaviors.Methods and findingsFrom January to March 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2621 practicing physicians in seven specialties: internal medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, psychiatry, and ophthalmology. The response rate was 54%. Most physicians met with PRs (98%), received drug samples (85%) and stationery (96%), and participated in industry-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) events at the workplace (80%) and outside the workplace (93%). Half accepted meals outside the workplace (49%) and financial subsidies to attend CME events (49%). Rules at the workplace banning both meetings with PRs and gifts predicted less involvement of physicians in promotional activities. Physicians valued information from PRs. They believed that they were unlikely to be influenced by promotional activities, but that their colleagues were more susceptible to such influence than themselves. They were divided about the appropriateness of low-value gifts. The extent of physician involvement in promotional activities was positively correlated with the attitudes that PRs are a valuable source of information and that gifts are appropriate. The extent of such involvement was higher among physicians who prefer to ask PRs for information when a new medication becomes available, physicians who are not satisfied with patient encounters ending only with advice, and physicians who prefer to prescribe brand-name medications.ConclusionsInvolvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities is widespread among practicing physicians in Japan. The extent of such involvement varies according to certain physician characteristics. As a group, they are at risk for influence by promotional activities.

Project description:BackgroundRationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic.ObjectiveTo describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians.DesignSurvey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior.SettingUS physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings.ParticipantsA total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses.InterventionsThe study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility.Main outcome measuresOverall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing.Key resultsIn total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing.ConclusionsMore than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.