Attitudes, barriers and facilitators of hospital pharmacists conducting practice-based research: a systematic review

Introduction: Practice-based research is essential in enhancing medication knowledge, quality use of medicines, the scope of the pharmacy profession and improving patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to uncover the attitudes of hospital pharmacists towards practice-based research and their perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to undertaking practice-based research. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases from 1 January 2000 to 11 March 2021 was conducted. Peer-reviewed empirical studies exploring hospital pharmacists’ perceptions of – as well as barriers and facilitators to – practice-based research were included and a descriptive synthesis used to identify common themes. Results: Nine studies were included in this review. Barriers and facilitators across four broad themes were related to pharmacist capacity and capability, workplace environment, research resources, and research culture. Hospital pharmacists had a high interest in conducting research, but limited research experience. Common barriers identified were lack of time, workplace support, funding, research culture, and competing priorities. Having a post-graduate qualification and a positive attitude towards research facilitated research participation. Departmental support, designated research time and creation of research networks and forums were seen as facilitators for practice-based research. Conclusion: Hospital pharmacists recognise the importance of practice-based research in improving knowledge, patient care and advancing pharmacy practice. However, large variation has been reported for their confidence and experience in practice-based research. Building research capacity and capability by supporting post-graduate research qualification, providing designated time and creating research networks may strengthen the research culture amongst hospital pharmacists

Cardiovascular risk among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal smoking male prisoners: inequalities compared to the wider community

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) were collected as part of a randomised controlled trial of a multi-component intervention to reduce smoking among male prisoners. Cross-sectional baseline data on CVRF were compared among smoking male prisoners and males of similar age in the general population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>425 smoking prisoners were recruited (n = 407 in New South Wales; 18 in Queensland), including 15% of Aboriginal descent (mean age 33 years; median sentence length 3.6 years). We measured CVRF such as smoking, physical activity, blood pressure, risky alcohol use, symptoms of depression, and low socioeconomic status.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that 39% of prisoners had 3+ CVRF, compared to 10% in a general community sample of most disadvantaged men of a similar age. Significantly more Aboriginal prisoners had 3+ CVRF than non-Aboriginal prisoners (55% vs 36%, p < 0.01) and were twice as likely to have 4+ CVRF (27% vs 12%). In addition to all prisoners in this study being a current smoker (with 70% smoking 20+ cigarettes per day), the prevalence of other CVRF was very high: insufficient physical activity (23%); hypertension (4%), risky drinking (52%), symptoms of depression (14%) and low socioeconomic status (SES) (44%). Aboriginal prisoners had higher levels of risky alcohol use, symptoms of depression, and were more likely to be of low SES.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prisoners are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease compared to even the most disadvantaged in their community and should be the focus of specific public health interventions.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12606000229572.aspx">ACTRN#12606000229572</a>.</p

Do dividends signal future earnings in the Nordic stock markets?

We study the informational content of dividends on three Nordic civil law markets, where other simultaneous but blurring motives for dividends may be weaker. Using aggregate data on real earnings per share and payout ratios, long time series from 1969 to 2010, and methodologies which address problems of endogeneity, non-stationarity and autocorrelation (including a Vector Error Correction Model approach), we find evidence on dividend signaling in Nordic markets. However, we also find heterogeneity in the relationship between dividends and earnings on markets similar in many respects, suggesting that even small variations in the institutional surroundings may be important for the results

Surface runoff estimation and prediction regarding LULC and climate dynamics using coupled LTM, optimized ARIMA and distributed-GIS-based SCS-CN models at tropical region

The integration of precipitation intensity and LULC forecasting have played a significant role in prospect surface runoff, allowing for an extension of the lead time that enables a more timely implementation of the control measures. The current study proposes a full-package model to monitor the changes in surface runoff in addition to forecasting the future surface runoff based on LULC and precipitation factors. On one hand, six different LULC classes from Spot-5 satellite image were extracted by object-based Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. Conjointly, Land Transformation Model (LTM) was used to detect the LULC pixel changes from 2000 to 2010 as well as predict the 2020. On the other hand, ARIMA model was applied to the analysis and forecasting the rainfall trends. The parameters of ARIMA time series model were calibrated and fitted statistically to minimize the prediction uncertainty by latest Taguchi method. Rainfall and streamflow data recorded in eight nearby gauging stations were engaged to train, forecast, and calibrate the climate hydrological models. Then, distributed-GIS-based SCS-CN model was applied to simulate the maximum probable surface runoff for 2000, 2010, and 2020. The comparison results showed that first, deforestation and urbanization have occurred upon the given time and it is anticipated to increase as well. Second, the amount of rainfall has been nonstationary declined till 2015 and this trend is estimated to continue till 2020. Third, due to the damaging changes in LULC and climate, the surface runoff has also increased till 2010 and it is forecasted to gradually exceed

High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution.

Executive summary: Although health outcomes have improved in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the past several decades, a new reality is at hand. Changing health needs, growing public expectations, and ambitious new health goals are raising the bar for health systems to produce better health outcomes and greater social value. But staying on current trajectory will not suffice to meet these demands. What is needed are high-quality health systems that optimise health care in each given context by consistently delivering care that improves or maintains health, by being valued and trusted by all people, and by responding to changing population needs. Quality should not be the purview of the elite or an aspiration for some distant future; it should be the DNA of all health systems. Furthermore, the human right to health is meaningless without good quality care because health systems cannot improve health without it. We propose that health systems be judged primarily on their impacts, including better health and its equitable distribution; on the confidence of people in their health system; and on their economic benefit, and processes of care, consisting of competent care and positive user experience. The foundations of high-quality health systems include the population and their health needs and expectations, governance of the health sector and partnerships across sectors, platforms for care delivery, workforce numbers and skills, and tools and resources, from medicines to data. In addition to strong foundations, health systems need to develop the capacity to measure and use data to learn. High-quality health systems should be informed by four values: they are for people, and they are equitable, resilient, and efficient. For this Commission, we examined the literature, analysed surveys, and did qualitative and quantitative research to evaluate the quality of care available to people in LMICs across a range of health needs included in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We explored the ethical dimensions of high-quality care in resource-constrained settings and reviewed available measures and improvement approaches. We reached five conclusions: The care that people receive is often inadequate, and poor-quality care is common across conditions and countries, with the most vulnerable populations faring the worst Data from a range of countries and conditions show systematic deficits in quality of care. In LMICs, mothers and children receive less than half of recommended clinical actions in a typical preventive or curative visit, less than half of suspected cases of tuberculosis are correctly managed, and fewer than one in ten people diagnosed with major depressive disorder receive minimally adequate treatment. Diagnoses are frequently incorrect for serious conditions, such as pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and newborn asphyxia. Care can be too slow for conditions that require timely action, reducing chances of survival. At the system level, we found major gaps in safety, prevention, integration, and continuity, reflected by poor patient retention and insufficient coordination across platforms of care. One in three people across LMICs cited negative experiences with their health system in the areas of attention, respect, communication, and length of visit (visits of 5 min are common); on the extreme end of these experiences were disrespectful treatment and abuse. Quality of care is worst for vulnerable groups, including the poor, the less educated, adolescents, those with stigmatised conditions, and those at the edges of health systems, such as people in prisons. Universal health coverage (UHC) can be a starting point for improving the quality of health systems. Improving quality should be a core component of UHC initiatives, alongside expanding coverage and financial protection. Governments should start by establishing a national quality guarantee for health services, specifying the level of competence and user experience that people can expect. To ensure that all people will benefit from improved services, expansion should prioritise the poor and their health needs from the start. Progress on UHC should be measured through effective (quality-corrected) coverage. High-quality health systems could save over 8 million lives each year in LMICs More than 8 million people per year in LMICs die from conditions that should be treatable by the health system. In 2015 alone, these deaths resulted in US$6 trillion in economic losses. Poor-quality care is now a bigger barrier to reducing mortality than insufficient access. 60% of deaths from conditions amenable to health care are due to poor-quality care, whereas the remaining deaths result from non-utilisation of the health system. High-quality health systems could prevent 2·5 million deaths from cardiovascular disease, 1 million newborn deaths, 900 000 deaths from tuberculosis, and half of all maternal deaths each year. Quality of care will become an even larger driver of population health as utilisation of health systems increases and as the burden of disease shifts to more complex conditions. The high mortality rates in LMICs for treatable causes, such as injuries and surgical conditions, maternal and newborn complications, cardiovascular disease, and vaccine preventable diseases, illustrate the breadth and depth of the health-care quality challenge. Poor-quality care can lead to other adverse outcomes, including unnecessary health-related suffering, persistent symptoms, loss of function, and a lack of trust and confidence in health systems. Waste of resources and catastrophic expenditures are economic side effects of poor-quality health systems. As a result of this, only one-quarter of people in LMICs believe that their health systems work well. Health systems should measure and report what matters most to people, such as competent care, user experience, health outcomes, and confidence in the system Measurement is key to accountability and improvement, but available measures do not capture many of the processes and outcomes that matter most to people. At the same time, data systems generate many metrics that produce inadequate insight at a substantial cost in funds and health workers' time. For example, although inputs such as medicines and equipment are commonly counted in surveys, these are weakly related to the quality of care that people receive. Indicators such as proportion of births with skilled attendants do not reflect quality of childbirth care and might lead to false complacency about progress in maternal and newborn health. This Commission calls for fewer, but better, measures of health system quality to be generated and used at national and subnational levels. Countries should report health system performance to the public annually by use of a dashboard of key metrics (eg, health outcomes, people's confidence in the system, system competence, and user experience) along with measures of financial protection and equity. Robust vital registries and trustworthy routine health information systems are prerequisites for good performance assessment. Countries need agile new surveys and real-time measures of health facilities and populations that reflect the health systems of today and not those of the past. To generate and interpret data, countries need to invest in national institutions and professionals with strong quantitative and analytical skills. Global development partners can support the generation and testing of public goods for health system measurement (civil and vital registries, routine data systems, and routine health system surveys) and promote national and regional institutions and the training and mentoring of scientists. New research is crucial for the transformation of low-quality health systems to high-quality ones Data on care quality in LMICs do not reflect the current disease burden. In many of these countries, we know little about quality of care for respiratory diseases, cancer, mental health, injuries, and surgery, as well as the care of adolescents and elderly people. There are vast blind spots in areas such as user experience, system competence, confidence in the system, and the wellbeing of people, including patient-reported outcomes. Measuring the quality of the health system as a whole and across the care continuum is essential, but not done. Filling in these gaps will require not only better routine health information systems for monitoring, but also new research, as proposed in the research agenda of this Commission. For example, research will be needed to rigorously evaluate the effects and costs of recommended improvement approaches on health, patient experience, and financial protection. Implementation science studies can help discern the contextual factors that promote or hinder reform. New data collection and research should be explicitly designed to build national and regional research capacity. Improving quality of care will require system-wide action To address the scale and range of quality deficits we documented in this Commission, reforming the foundations of the health system is required. Because health systems are complex adaptive systems that function at multiple interconnected levels, fixes at the micro-level (ie, health-care provider or clinic) alone are unlikely to alter the underlying performance of the whole system. However, we found that interventions aimed at changing provider behaviour dominate the improvement field, even though many of these interventions have a modest effect on provider performance and are difficult to scale and sustain over time. Achieving high-quality health systems requires expanding the space for improvement to structural reforms that act on the foundations of the system. This Commission endorses four universal actions to raise quality across the health system. First, health system leaders need to govern for quality by adopting a shared vision of quality care, a clear quality strategy, strong regulation, and continuous learning. Ministries of health cannot accomplish this alone and need to partner with the private sector, civil society, and sectors outside of health care, such as education, infrastructure, communication, and transport. Second, countries should redesign service delivery to maximise health outcomes rather than geographical access to services alone. Primary care could tackle a greater range of low-acuity conditions, whereas hospitals or specialised health centres should provide care for conditions, such as births, that need advanced clinical expertise or have the risk of unexpected complications. Third, countries should transform the health workforce by adopting competency-based clinical education, introducing training in ethics and respectful care, and better supporting and respecting all workers to deliver the best care possible. Fourth, governments and civil society should ignite demand for quality in the population to empower people to hold systems accountable and actively seek high-quality care. Additional targeted actions in areas such as health financing, management, district-level learning, and others can complement these efforts. What works in one setting might not work elsewhere, and improvement efforts should be adapted for local context and monitored. Funders should align their support with system-wide strategies rather than contribute to the proliferation of micro-level efforts. In this Commission, we assert that providing health services without guaranteeing a minimum level of quality is ineffective, wasteful, and unethical. Moving to a high-quality health system—one that improves health and generates confidence and economic benefits—is primarily a political, not technical, decision. National governments need to invest in high-quality health systems for their own people and make such systems accountable to people through legislation, education about rights, regulation, transparency, and greater public participation. Countries will know that they are on the way towards a high-quality, accountable health system when health workers and policymakers choose to receive health care in their own public institutions.Fil: Kruk, Margaret E.. Harvard University. Harvard School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Gage, Anna D.. Harvard University. Harvard School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Arsenault, Catherine. Harvard University. Harvard School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Jordan, Keely. New York College of Global Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Leslie, Hannah H.. Harvard University. Harvard School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Roder DeWan, Sanam. Harvard University. Harvard School of Public Health; Estados UnidosFil: Adeyi, Olusoji. Banco Mundial; Estados UnidosFil: Barker, Pierre. Institute For Healthcare Improvement; Estados UnidosFil: Daelmans, Bernadette. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; SuizaFil: Doubova, Svetlana V.. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; MéxicoFil: English, Mike. KEMRI - Wellcome Trust; KeniaFil: Garcia Elorrio, Ezequiel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Guanais, Frederico. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo; Estados UnidosFil: Gureje, Oye. University Of Ibadan; NigeriaFil: Hirschhorn, Lisa R.. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Jiang, Lixin. National Center For Cardiovascular Diseases; ChinaFil: Kelley, Edward. Organizacion Mundial de la Salud; SuizaFil: Lemango, Ephrem Tekle. Federal Ministry of Health; EtiopíaFil: Liljestrand, Jerker. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Estados UnidosFil: Malata, Address. Malawi University Of Science And Technology; MalauiFil: Marchant, Tanya. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Reino UnidoFil: Matsoso, Malebona Precious. National Department of Health of the Republic of South Africa; SudáfricaFil: Meara, John G.. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Mohanan, Manoj. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Ndiaye, Youssoupha. Ministry of Health and Social Action of the Republic of Senegal; SenegalFil: Norheim, Ole F.. University of Bergen; NoruegaFil: Reddy, K. Srinath. Public Health Foundation of India; IndiaFil: Rowe, Alexander K.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Estados UnidosFil: Salomon, Joshua A.. Stanford University School Of Medicine; Estados UnidosFil: Thapa, Gagan. Legislature Parliament Of Nepal; NepalFil: Twum Danso, Nana A. Y.. Maza; GhanaFil: Pate, Muhammad. Big Win Philanthropy; Reino Unid