OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses serving at public hospitals in Penang, Malaysia.
METHODS: A pretested, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from study participants of 6 public hospitals using stratified sampling. Descriptive and inferential statistics used to analyze the data with level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of 600 distributed questionnaires, 526 (87.6%) were adequately filled and returned. Almost 19.0% (n = 98) of the respondents admitted that they did not frequently use simple language and avoid medical jargon during communication with patients. Only about half of the respondents reported frequently using other HL communication practices that include handing out education material to patients (52.2%, n = 275), asking the patient to repeat information (58.9%, n = 310), and asking patients' caregivers to be present during explanation (57.4%, n = 302). Comparatively, drawing pictures to ease patients' understanding (40.1%, n = 211) was the less-frequently practiced HL communication techniques. Health practitioners in the age group >41 years ( P = 0.046), serving 10 years and more ( P = 0.03) and those who have heard the term or concept of HL ( P = 0.004) have statistically significantly higher mean score of HL communication practices than other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The gap in the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses warrants educational intervention, and standardized HL communication techniques guidelines are needed in the near future.
METHODS: Theme-oriented discourse analysis of two psychiatric consultation groups: control (n = 17) and intervention (n = 16). In the control group, only a doctor's conversation guide was used; in the intervention group, the conversation guide and a patient decision aid (PDA) were used.
RESULTS: Psychiatrists mainly dominated conversations in both consultation groups. They were less likely to elicit patient treatment-related perspectives in the intervention group as they focused more on delivering the information than obtaining patient perspectives. However, using PDA in the intervention group slightly encouraged patients to participate in decisional talk.
CONCLUSION: The decision support tools did promote SDM performance. Using the conversation guide in both consultation groups encouraged the elicitation of patient perspectives, which helped the psychiatrists in tailoring their recommendations of options based on patient preferences and concerns. Using the PDA in the intervention group created space for treatment discussion and fostered active collaboration in treatment decision making.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings have implications for SDM communication skills training and critical reflection on SDM practice.
OBJECTIVES: To apply and validate the Knowledge Sharing Behavior Scale (KSBS) as a measure of knowledge sharing behavior within the academic community.
SUBJECTS: Respondents (N = 447) were academics from arts and science streams in 10 local, public universities in Malaysia.
MEASURES: Data were collected using the 28-item KSBS that assessed four dimensions of knowledge sharing behavior namely written contributions, organizational communications, personal interactions, and communities of practice.
RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis showed that the items loaded on the dimension constructs that they were supposed to represent, thus proving construct validity. A within-factor analysis revealed that each set of items representing their intended dimension loaded on only one construct, therefore establishing convergent validity. All four dimensions were not perfectly correlated with each other or organizational citizenship behavior, thereby proving discriminant validity. However, all four dimensions correlated with organizational commitment, thus confirming predictive validity. Furthermore, all four factors correlated with both tacit and explicit sharing, which confirmed their concurrent validity. All measures also possessed sufficient reliability (α > .70).
CONCLUSION: The KSBS is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to formally assess the types of knowledge artifacts residing among academics and the degree of knowledge sharing in relation to those artifacts.