Search

Abstract Background To identify facilitators of, and barriers to, screening for child abuse in emergency departments (ED) through interviews with ED staff, members of the hospital Board, and related experts. Methods This qualitative study is based on semi-structured interviews with 27 professionals from seven Dutch hospitals (i.e. seven pediatricians, two surgeons, six ED nurses, six ED managers and six hospital Board members). The resulting list of facilitators/barriers was subsequently discussed with five experts in child abuse and one implementation expert. The results are ordered using the Child Abuse Framework of the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate that legally requires screening for child abuse. Results Lack of knowledge of child abuse, communication with parents in the case of suspected abuse, and lack of time for development of policy and cases are barriers for ED staff to screen for child abuse. For Board members, lack of means and time, and a high turnover of ED staff are impediments to improving their child abuse policy. Screening can be promoted by training ED staff to better recognize child abuse, improving communication skills, appointing an attendant specifically for child abuse, explicit support of the screening policy by management, and by national implementation of an approved protocol and validated screening instrument. Conclusions ED staff are motivated to work according to the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate requirements but experiences many barriers, particularly communication with parents of children suspected of being abused. Introduction of a national child abuse protocol can improve screening on child abuse at EDs.

Background: Understanding how knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding leprosy differ in endemic countries can help us develop targeted educational and behavioural change interventions. This study aimed to examine the differences and commonalities in and determinants of knowledge, attitudes, practices and fears regarding leprosy in endemic districts in India and Indonesia. Principle findings: A cross-sectional mixed-methods design was used. Persons affected by leprosy, their close contacts, community members and health workers were included. Through interview-administered questionnaires we assessed knowledge, attitudes, practices and fears with the KAP measure, EMIC-CSS and SDS. In addition, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The quantitative data were analysed using stepwise multivariate regression. Determinants of knowledge and stigma that were examined included age, gender, participant type, education, occupation, knowing someone affected by leprosy and district. The qualitative data were analysed using open, inductive coding and content analysis. We administered questionnaires to 2344 participants (46% from India, 54% from Indonesia) as an interview. In addition, 110 participants were interviewed in-depth and 60 participants were included in focus group discussions. Knowledge levels were low in both countries: 88% of the participants in India and 90% of the participants in Indonesia had inadequate knowledge of leprosy. In both countries, cause, mode of transmission, early symptoms and contagiousness of leprosy was least known, and treatment and treatability of leprosy was best known. In both countries, health workers had the highest leprosy knowledge levels and community members the highest stigma levels (a mean score of up to 17.4 on the EMIC-CSS and 9.1 on the SDS). Data from the interviews indicated that people were afraid of being infected by leprosy. Local beliefs and misconceptions differed, for instance that leprosy is in the family for seven generations (Indonesia) or that leprosy is a result of karma (India). The determinants of leprosy knowledge and stigma explained 10–29% of the variability in level of knowledge and 3–10% of the variability in level of stigma. Conclusion: Our findings show the importance of investigating the perceptions regarding leprosy prior to educational interventions in communities: even though knowledge levels were similar, local beliefs and misconceptions differed per setting. The potential determinants we included in our study explained very little of the variability in level of knowledge and stigma and should be explored further. Detailed knowledge of local knowledge gaps, beliefs and fears can help tailor health education to local circumstances. Author summary: This study aimed to examine the differences and commonalities in and determinants of knowledge, attitudes, practices and fears regarding leprosy in endemic districts in India and Indonesia. Persons affected by leprosy, their close contacts, community members and health workers were included. We administered questionnaires (the KAP measure, EMIC-CSS and SDS) to 2344 participants. In addition, 110 participants were interviewed in-depth and 60 participants were included in focus group discussions. Knowledge levels were low. In both countries, cause, mode of transmission, early symptoms and contagiousness of leprosy was least known, and treatment and treatability of leprosy was best known. In both countries, health workers had the highest leprosy knowledge levels and community members the highest stigma levels. Data from the interviews indicated that people were afraid of being infected by leprosy. Local beliefs and misconceptions differed. The potential determinants we included in our study explained very little of the variability in level of knowledge and stigma and should be explored further. Our findings show the importance of investigating the perceptions regarding leprosy prior to educational interventions in communities: even though knowledge levels were similar, local beliefs and misconceptions differed per setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Missing data are common in end-of-life care studies, but there is still relatively little exploration of which is the best method to deal with them, and, in particular, if the missing at random (MAR) assumption is valid or missing not at random (MNAR) mechanisms should be assumed. In this paper we investigated this issue through a sensitivity analysis within the ACTION study, a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial testing advance care planning in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer.Methods: Multiple imputation procedures under MAR and MNAR assumptions were implemented. Possible violation of the MAR assumption was addressed with reference to variables measuring quality of life and symptoms. The MNAR model assumed that patients with worse health were more likely to have missing questionnaires, making a distinction between single missing items, which were assumed to satisfy the MAR assumption, and missing values due to completely missing questionnaire for which a MNAR mechanism was hypothesized. We explored the sensitivity to possible departures from MAR on gender differences between key indicators and on simple correlations.Results: Up to 39% of follow-up data were missing. Results under MAR reflected that missingness was related to poorer health status. Correlations between variables, although very small, changed according to the imputation method, as well as the differences in scores by gender, indicating a certain sensitivity of the results to the violation of the MAR assumption.Conclusions: The findings confirmed the importance of undertaking this kind of analysis in end-of-life care studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Even when medical treatments are limited, supporting patients' coping strategies could improve their quality of life. Greater understanding of patients' coping strategies, and influencing factors, can aid developing such support. We examined the prevalence of coping strategies and associated variables.Methods: We used sociodemographic and baseline data from the ACTION trial, including measures of Denial, Acceptance, and Problem-focused coping (COPE; Brief COPE inventory), of patients with advanced cancer from six European countries. Clinicians provided clinical information. Linear mixed models with clustering at hospital level were used.Results: Data from 675 patients with stage III/IV lung (342, 51%) or stage IV colorectal (333, 49%) cancer were used; mean age 66 (10 SD) years. Overall, patients scored low on Denial and high on Acceptance and Problem-focused coping. Older age was associated with higher scores on Denial than younger age (β = 0.05; CI[0.023; 0.074]), and patients from Italy (β = 1.57 CI[0.760; 2.388]) and Denmark (β = 1.82 CI[0.881; 2.750]) scored higher on Denial than patients in other countries.Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer predominantly used Acceptance and Problem-focused coping, and Denial to a lesser extent. Since the studied coping strategies of patients with advanced cancer vary between subpopulations, we recommend taking these factors into account when developing tailored interventions to support patients' coping strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance Care Planning aims at improving alignment of care with patients' preferences. This may affect costs of medical care. Aim: To determine the costs of an Advance Care Planning programme and its effects on the costs of medical care and on concordance of care with patients' preferences. Design/settings/participants: In a cluster randomised trial, 16 residential care homes were randomly allocated to the intervention group, where frail, older participants were offered facilitated Advance Care Planning conversations or to the control group. We calculated variable costs of Advance Care Planning per participant including personnel and travel costs of facilitators. Furthermore, we assessed participants' healthcare use during 12 months applying a broad perspective (including medical care, inpatient days in residential care homes, home care) and calculated costs of care per participant. Finally, we investigated whether treatment goals were in accordance with preferences. Analyses were conducted for 97 participants per group. Trial registration number: NTR4454. Results: Average variable Advance Care Planning costs were €76 per participant. The average costs of medical care were not significantly different between the intervention and control group (€2360 vs €2235, respectively, p = 0.36). Costs of inpatient days in residential care homes (€41,551 vs €46,533) and of home care (€14,091 vs €17,361) were not significantly different either. Concordance of care with preferences could not be assessed since treatment goals were often not recorded. Conclusion: The costs of an Advance Care Planning programme were limited. Advance Care Planning did not significantly affect the costs of medical care for frail older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]