Search

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to conceptualise a research study to examine leadership as a relational concept between leaders and followers. The context is within surgical practice examining how motivated consultant surgeons are to lead junior doctors and which type of leadership style they use. From a follower perspective, the motivation of junior doctors will be explored, and their leadership preferences will be correlated with those of the actual style of consultant surgeons. Design/methodology/approach: In this paper, the authors provide a detailed description of the methods for an international quantitative research study, exploring sequentially how motivated consultant surgeons are to lead and how leadership styles impact on the motivation of junior doctors. The objectives, method and data collection of this study are explained, and the justification for each method is described. Findings: The findings for this outline study illustrate how critical it is to redefine leadership as a relational concept of leader and follower to ensure adequate support is provided to the next generation of consultant surgeons. Without consideration of the relational model of leadership, attrition will continue to be a critical issue in the medical workforce. Research limitations/implications: The research limitations are that this is a proposed quantitative study due to the need to collect a large sample of data from surgeons across the UK, Egypt and Germany. This research will have immense implications in developing new knowledge of leadership as a relational concept in medicine and healthcare. This study additionally will impact on how leadership is conceptualised in the curriculum for specialist surgical practice. Practical implications: The practical implications are that relational leadership is supportive of generating a supportive leadership culture in the workplace and generating more effective teamwork. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to look at a relational model of leadership in surgical practice between consultant surgeons and surgical trainees. This study will also identify any specific country differences between the UK, Germany and Egypt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally. Background: People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries. Results: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine. Trial registration: NA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]