Ispitivanje stavova studenata biomedicinskih nauka o primeni društvenih mreža u komunikaciji sa pacijentima

Technology development, higher Internet and smart devices accessibility have contributed to increasing the use and application of social media, online platforms and applications in healthcare, where healthcare professionals use social media both privately and while performing professional tasks (1, 2). The aim of the research was to examine attitudes of biomedical sciences students towards application of social media in communication with patients. A questionnaire was created, then distributed using the Snowball technique. 311 students participated, all of whom used social media at least once. YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are the most used platforms, used daily (97.11%) for personal and/or professional use. 82.24% believe helping patients to understand online information is a new pharmacists' duty in digital age, and 61.09% that it is their obligation to keep up with current trends in social media usage. The majority thinks that social media have the potential to improve communication between pharmacists and patients (76.38%) and that it is ethically acceptable for pharmacists to communicate with patients through social media (55.63%), without violating their confidentiality (53,23%). Every second student thinks that it is ethically unacceptable for a pharmacist to communicate with a patient through social media private accounts, and to visit patients' profiles (51.77%). Encouraging is that 92.60% find it unacceptable that patients' confidential information is shared without patients' consent. The results indicate a positive attitude of biomedical sciences students about using social media to help patients understand information available online, and that social media have the potential to improve communication between pharmacists and patients.Razvoj tehnologije, veća dostupnost interneta i pametnih uređaja, doprineli su povećanju upotrebe i primene društvenih mreža, onlajn platformi i aplikacija u zdravstvu, gde zdravstveni radnici društvene mreže koriste u svom privatnom životu, ali i u obavljanju svojih profesionalnih dužnosti (1,2). Cilj istraživanja je bio da se ispitaju stavovi studenata biomedicinskih nauka o primeni društvenih mreža u komunikaciji sa pacijentima. Namenski je kreiran upitnik, koji je distribuiran Snowball tehnikom. U istraživanju je učestvovalo 311 studenata, od kojih su svi barem nekada koristili društvene mreže. YouTube, Instagram i Facebook su društvene mreže koje najviše koriste i to svakodnevno (97,11%), za ličnu i/ili profesionalnu upotrebu. 82,24% smatra da je pomaganje pacijentima u razumevanju informacija dostupnih online nova dužnost farmaceuta u digitalnom dobu, a 61,09% da je njihova obaveza da budu u toku sa trenutnim trendovima u korišćenju društvenih mreža. Većina je mišljenja da društvene mreže imaju potencijal da unaprede komunikaciju između farmaceuta i pacijenta (76,38%) i da je etički prihvatljivo za farmaceuta da komunicira sa pacijentom putem društvenih mreža (55,63%), bez narušavanja njihovog poverljivog odnosa (53,23%). Svaki drugi student smatra da nije etički prihvatljivo za farmaceuta da komunicira sa pacijentom preko privatnih naloga na društvenim mrežama, i da posećuje profil pacijenata na društvenim mreža (51,77%). Ohrabruje rezultat da 92,60% nedopustivim smatra deljenje poverljivih informacija o pacijentima bez njihovog pristanka. Rezultati ukazuju na pozitivan stav studenata biomedicinskih nauka u korišćenju društvenih mreža u pomaganju pacijentima u razumevanju informacija dostupnih online, kao i da društvene mreže imaju potencijal da unaprede komunikaciju između farmaceuta i pacijenta.VIII Kongres farmaceuta Srbije sa međunarodnim učešćem, 12-15.10.2022. Beogra

Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support Decision Making

Systematic reviews are commonly used in human health research to provide overviews of existing evidence pertinent to clearly formulated specific questions, using pre-specified and standardised methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report and analyse data from the studies that are included in the reviews. Formal systematic reviews have rarely been used in food and feed safety risk assessments and the existing systematic review methods in other disciplines may not be directly applicable in this field. This Guidance aims to assist the application of systematic reviews to food and feed safety risk assessments in support of decision making, by describing a framework for identifying the different types of question suitable for systematic review generated by the risk assessment process and for determining the need for systematic reviews when dealing with broad food and feed safety policy problems. The Guidance provides suggestions and examples for the conduct of eight key steps in the systematic review process (preparing a review, searching for studies, selecting studies for inclusion, collecting data from included studies, assessing the methodological quality of included studies, synthesising data from the studies, presenting data and results, and interpreting the results and drawing conclusions) for questions suitable for systematic reviews, taking into account issues that may be unique to food and feed safety. Due to its methodological rigor and its objective and transparent nature, systematic review methodology and its principles could provide additional value for answering well-formulated specific questions generated by the risk assessment process or other analytical frameworks in food and feed safety. Regular updates of this Guidance are foreseen in light of experience and new evidence both in food and feed safety and systematic review methodology

The application of knowledge synthesis methods in agri-food public health

Knowledge synthesis refers to the integration of findings from individual research studies on a given topic or question into the global knowledge base. The application of knowledge synthesis methods, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analysis, has increased considerably in the agri-food public health sector over the past decade and this trend is expected to continue. The objectives of our review were: 1) to describe the most promising knowledge synthesis methods and their applicability in agri-food public health, and 2) to summarize the recent advancements, challenges, and opportunities in the use of systematic review and meta-analysis methods in this sector. We performed a structured review of knowledge synthesis literature from various disciplines to address the first objective, and used comprehensive insights and experiences in applying these methods in the agri-food public health sector to inform the second objective. We describe five knowledge synthesis methods that can be used to address various agri-food public health questions or topics under different conditions and contexts. Scoping reviews describe the main characteristics and knowledge gaps in a broad research field and can be used to evaluate opportunities for prioritizing focused questions for related systematic reviews. Structured rapid reviews are streamlined systematic reviews conducted within a short timeframe to inform urgent decision-making. Mixed-method and qualitative reviews synthesize diverse sources of contextual knowledge (e.g. socio-cognitive, economic, and feasibility considerations). Systematic reviews are a structured and transparent method used to summarize and synthesize literature on a clearly-defined question, and meta-analysis is the statistical combination of data from multiple individual studies. We briefly describe and discuss key advancements in the use of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, including: risk-of-bias assessments; an overall quality-of-evidence approach; engagement of stakeholders; Bayesian, multivariate, and network meta-analysis; and synthesis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. We also highlight several challenges and opportunities in the conduct of systematic reviews (e.g. inclusion of grey literature, minimizing language bias, and optimizing search strategies) and meta-analysis (e.g. inclusion of observational studies and approaches to address the insufficient reporting of data and significant heterogeneity). Many of these developments have yet to be comprehensively applied and evaluated in an agri-food public health context, and more research is needed in this area. There is a need to strengthen knowledge synthesis capacity and infrastructure at the regional, national, and international levels in this sector to ensure that the best available knowledge is used to inform future decision-making about agri-food public health issues

Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support Decision Making

Systematic reviews are commonly used in human health research to provide overviews of existing evidence pertinent to clearly formulated specific questions, using pre-specified and standardised methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report and analyse data from the studies that are included in the reviews. Formal systematic reviews have rarely been used in food and feed safety risk assessments and the existing systematic review methods in other disciplines may not be directly applicable in this field. This Guidance aims to assist the application of systematic reviews to food and feed safety risk assessments in support of decision making, by describing a framework for identifying the different types of question suitable for systematic review generated by the risk assessment process and for determining the need for systematic reviews when dealing with broad food and feed safety policy problems. The Guidance provides suggestions and examples for the conduct of eight key steps in the systematic review process (preparing a review, searching for studies, selecting studies for inclusion, collecting data from included studies, assessing the methodological quality of included studies, synthesising data from the studies, presenting data and results, and interpreting the results and drawing conclusions) for questions suitable for systematic reviews, taking into account issues that may be unique to food and feed safety. Due to its methodological rigor and its objective and transparent nature, systematic review methodology and its principles could provide additional value for answering well-formulated specific questions generated by the risk assessment process or other analytical frameworks in food and feed safety. Regular updates of this Guidance are foreseen in light of experience and new evidence both in food and feed safety and systematic review methodology.This article is from EFSA Journal 8 (2010): 90 pp., doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637. Posted with permission.</p