Communication Sciences and Disorders Graduate Students\u27 Strengths and Vulnerabilities Related to Resilience: A Survey of Graduate Programs

Burnout in health care professionals may pose a threat to the quality of care provided in any setting. The purpose of this project was to examine dimensions related to future resilience in CSD graduate students. METHODS: In this project, 146 master’s degree students from Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) programs in the Midwest completed an online survey regarding lifestyle stresses affecting resilience, and patterns in five areas correlated with resilience. RESULTS: Top lifestyle stresses affecting academics were general stress, maintaining mental health, and sleep difficulties. Notably, more than half of the participants reported feeling rested three or fewer days per week. Further, CSD students reported significantly higher incidence of general stress, mental health conditions, chronic health conditions, concern for a friend or family member’s struggles, and sleep difficulty than college age peers. Positive factors identified related to resilience in CSD students included presence of professional networks and mentoring, maintaining positivity, opportunities for reflecting on strengths and weaknesses, and having a sense meaning in life. Respondent areas of resilience vulnerability were reduced optimism on a daily basis, limited sense of life balance, and hesitancy to discuss life issues or accommodation needs with faculty. Implications are discussed regarding CSD graduate programs’ roles in fostering resilience. CONCLUSION: Professional programs can support and promote the development of personal and professional resilience in students training for healthcare professions. This survey project provides a starting point to describe patterns in CSD master’s programs within the Midwestern region of the US

Why Do High School Seniors Drink? Implications for a Targeted Approach to Intervention

The transition from high school to college provides a potentially critical window to intervene and reduce risky behavior among adolescents. Understanding the motivations (e.g., social, coping, enhancement) behind high school seniors’ alcohol use could provide one important avenue to reducing risky drinking behaviors. In the present study, latent class analysis was used to examine the relationship between different patterns of drinking motivations and behaviors in a sample of 12th graders (N = 1,877) from the 2004 Monitoring the Future survey. Unlike previous variable-centered analyses, this person-centered approach identifies types of motivations that cluster together within individuals and relates membership in these profiles to drinking behaviors. Results suggest four profiles of drinking motivations for both boys and girls, including Experimenters, Thrill-seekers, Multi-reasoners, and Relaxers. Early initiation of alcohol use, past year drunkenness, and drinking before 4 p.m. were associated with greater odds of membership in the Multi-reasoners class as compared to the Experimenters class. Although the strength of these relationships varied for boys and girls, findings were similar across gender suggesting that the riskiest drinking behavior was related to membership in the Multi-reasoners class. These findings can be used to inform prevention programming. Specifically, targeted interventions that tailor program content to the distinct drinking motivation profiles described above may prove to be effective in reducing risky drinking behavior among high school seniors

Primary care research priorities in low- and middle-income countries

PURPOSE To identify and prioritize the needs for new research evidence for primary health care (PHC) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) about organization, models of care, and financing of PHC. METHODS Three-round expert panel consultation of LMIC PHC practitioners and academics sampled from global networks, via web-based surveys. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. Round 1 (pre–Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organization and models of care and about financing. Round 2 invited panelists to rate the importance of each question, and in round 3 panelists provided priority ranking. RESULTS One hundred forty-one practitioners and academics from 50 LMICs from all global regions participated and identified 744 knowledge gaps critical to improving PHC organization and 479 for financing. Four priority areas emerged: effective transition of primary and secondary services, horizontal integration within a multidisciplinary team and intersectoral referral, integration of private and public sectors, and ways to support successfully functioning PHC professionals. Financial evidence priorities were mechanisms to drive investment into PHC, redress inequities, increase service quality, and determine the minimum necessary budget for good PHC. CONCLUSIONS This novel approach toward PHC needs in LMICs, informed by local academics and professionals, created an expansive and prioritized list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC organization and financing. It resulted in research questions, offering valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation. Its source and context specificity, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing research findings

Research gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approach

Introduction Since the Alma-Ata Declaration 40 years ago, primary healthcare (PHC) has made great advances, but there is insufficient research on models of care and outcomes—particularly for low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic efforts to identify these gaps and develop evidence-based strategies for improvement in LMICs has been lacking. We report on a global effort to identify and prioritise the knowledge needs of PHC practitioners and researchers in LMICs about PHC organisation. Methods Three-round modified Delphi using web-based surveys. PHC practitioners and academics and policy-makers from LMICs sampled from global networks. First round (pre-Delphi survey) collated possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organisation. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised. Round 2 (Delphi round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In round 3 (Delphi round 2), panellists ranked questions into final order of importance. Literature review conducted on 36 questions and gap map generated. Results Diverse range of practitioners and academics in LMICs from all global regions generated 744 questions for PHC organisation. In round 2, 36 synthesised questions on organisation were rated. In round 3, the top 16 questions were ranked to yield four prioritised questions in each area. Literature reviews confirmed gap in evidence on prioritised questions in LMICs. Conclusion In line with the 2018 Astana Declaration, this mixed-methods study has produced a unique list of essential gaps in our knowledge of how best to organise PHC, priority-ordered by LMIC expert informants capable of shaping their mitigation. Research teams in LMIC have developed implementation plans to answer the top four ranked research questions

Primary care financing: a systematic assessment of research priorities in low- and middle-income countries

Introduction: Financing of primary healthcare (PHC) is the key to the provision of equitable universal care. We aimed to identify and prioritise the perceived needs of PHC practitioners and researchers for new research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) about financing of PHC. Methods: Three-round expert panel consultation using web-based surveys of LMIC PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers sampled from global networks. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. First round (PreDelphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about financing. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised to two lists of questions. Round 2 (Delphi Round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In Round 3 (Delphi Round 2), panellists ranked questions in order of importance. Results: A diverse range of PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers in LMIC representing all global regions identified 479 knowledge gaps as potentially critical to improving PHC financing. Round 2 provided 31 synthesised questions on financing for rating. The top 16 were ranked in Round 3e to produce four prioritised research questions. Conclusions: This novel exercise created an expansive and prioritised list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC financing research questions. This offers valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation, including research funders and academics seeking research priorities. The source and context specificity of this research, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics on a global and local basis, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing the findings

Primary Care Research Priorities in Low-and Middle-Income Countries

PURPOSE To identify and prioritize the needs for new research evidence for primary health care (PHC) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) about organization, models of care, and financing of PHC. METHODS Three-round expert panel consultation of LMIC PHC practitioners and academics sampled from global networks, via web-based surveys. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. Round 1 (pre-Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organization and models of care and about financing. Round 2 invited panelists to rate the importance of each question, and in round 3 panelists provided priority ranking. RESULTS One hundred forty-one practitioners and academics from 50 LMICs from all global regions participated and identified 744 knowledge gaps critical to improving PHC organization and 479 for financing. Four priority areas emerged: effective transition of primary and secondary services, horizontal integration within a multidisciplinary team and intersectoral referral, integration of private and public sectors, and ways to support successfully functioning PHC professionals. Financial evidence priorities were mechanisms to drive investment into PHC, redress inequities, increase service quality, and determine the minimum necessary budget for good PHC. CONCLUSIONS This novel approach toward PHC needs in LMICs, informed by local academics and professionals, created an expansive and prioritized list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC organization and financing. It resulted in research questions, offering valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation. Its source and context specificity, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing research findings.The authors agreed to bid for funding through their shared professional network–the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA)–because the aim of the grant aligns with WONCA’s academic mission. Funding came from Ariadne Laboratories through Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is the recipient of a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant

Fostering global primary care research: A capacity-building approach

The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research-a core element of high-quality PHC-in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and 'brain drain' may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how todeal with these tensions

Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach

The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research - a core element of high-quality PHC - in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and € brain drain' may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how to deal with these tensions