Search

Accessible Summary: What is already known about this topic?: Individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) have elevated risks for physical health problems and low screening rates.No previous studies have compared the physical health promotion needs of people with SMI using the same screening tool across different international settings. What this paper adds to existing knowledge?: It appears feasible to use the HIP to profile and compare physical health‐related risks in people with SMI across different international settings.The HIP tool identified significant differences in areas of risk across the four countries. What are the implications for practice?: The HIP could be used to identify unique clusters of health promotion needs in different countries.Use of HIP health checks may support implementation of individualized interventions. Introduction: To date, no studies have contrasted physical health profiles of people with severe mental illness (SMI) in different countries. Aim: To evaluate feasibility of using the Health Improvement Profile (HIP) to compare and contrast physical health and health behaviours of people with SMI from four countries. Method: An observational feasibility study using secondary analysis of pooled health state and lifestyle data. Physical health checks using modified versions of HIP were administered in four countries. Results: Findings suggest feasibility of HIP screening to profile and compare physical health and health behaviours of people with SMI across international settings. High overall numbers of risk items (red flags) were identified in all but the Thailand sample. Despite some commonalities, there were important differences in health profiles across countries. Discussion: This is the first study to demonstrate feasibility of the HIP to compare health risks in individuals with SMI across countries. Future multi‐national HIP studies should recruit a fully powered stratified random sample of people with SMI that is representative of each setting. Implications for practice: It appears feasible to utilize the HIP to identify specific areas of health risk in different countries, which may help to better focus nursing interventions and use of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]