DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGD) informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). FGDs were conducted in English, audioconferencing/videoconferencing was recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using an inductive and deductive approach. Participants suggested specific elements to be measured within three main 'pillars' of disease conditions proposed by the research team of the tool being developed (cardiovascular, trauma and perinatal emergencies).
SETTING: We explored the perspectives of medical directors in six low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in South and SE Asia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 16 participants were interviewed (1 Vietnam, 4 Philippines, 4 Thailand, 5 Malaysia, 1 Indonesia and 1 Pakistan) as a part of 4 focus groups.
RESULTS: Themes identified within the four CFIR constructs included: (1) Intervention characteristics: importance of developing an contextually specific tool, need for generalisability, trialling in one geographical area or with one pillar before expanding; (2) Inner setting: data transfer barriers, workforce shortages; (3) Outer setting: underdevelopment of EMS nationally; need for further EMS system development prior to implementing a tool and (4) Individual characteristics: lack of buy-in by prehospital personnel. Elements proposed by participants included both process and outcome measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Through the CFIR framework, we identified several themes which can provide a basis for codeveloping a PEC-SET for LMICs with local stakeholders. This work may inform development of quality improvement tools in LMIC PEC systems.
Method: The nature of patient-pharmacist counseling interactions was explored with seven patients (one focus group), and 10 practicing pharmacists (two focus groups, three semi-structured interviews). The themes identified informed the development of an online survey that was advertised online to patients and pharmacists across Australia.
Results: A total of 95 patients and 208 pharmacists completed the survey. Overall, more than half of patients (77/95) were satisfied with the care provided by their pharmacist, but only a third (71/205) of pharmacists were satisfied with the care they provided to patients. The majority of patients (67/94) reported that pharmacists provided good information about medications. This aligned with pharmacists' responses, as most reported focusing on medication side effects (118/188) and instructions for taking pain medication (93/183) during patient interactions. However, when asked about empathy and rapport from pharmacists, only half to two-thirds (48-61/95) of patients expressed positive views. Overall, half of the patients (39/75) wanted a caring, empathetic, respectful, and private conversation with the pharmacist, and nearly half (40/89) perceived the pharmacist's role as providing (new) information on alternative pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, including general advice on pain management.
Conclusion: There was a disparity in the nature of the interaction and information that patients wanted from pharmacists, compared to what was provided by pharmacists. Training and education may help pharmacists to better engage in patient-centered care when interacting with people living with persistent pain, thereby improving health outcomes for these patients.
Patients and methods: A focus group discussion was conducted with 12 community pharmacists. Participants were recruited using snowball sampling. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a thematic approach.
Results: Three themes were apparent: 1) suggestions for app design and content, 2) perceived benefits of the app, and 3) potential challenges related to the app. Participants believed the app would be able to facilitate and improve communication, and hence relationship, between pharmacists and the DHoH. Potential challenges of the app were highlighted, such as the need for manpower to manage the app, and its cost to this group of economically disadvantaged people. There were also concerns about privacy and security.
Conclusions: This study allowed community pharmacists, one of the end-users of the app, to provide feedback on the contents and design of the app, which would allow them to provide pharmaceutical care services to patients who are DHoH, and better serve them. Potential benefits and challenges of the app were also identified. Undoubtedly, through the mHealth app, community pharmacists will be better equipped to serve and communicate with the DHoH, and this will hopefully translate to improved health outcomes in these patients.
METHODS: This qualitative exploration study. All healthcare providers who were involved in EnPHC at the intervention clinics were selected as participants. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were carried out among healthcare providers working in the intervention clinic. Thematic analysis was used to categorize data, based on the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) theoretical framework domains.
RESULTS: A total of 61 healthcare providers participated. All 5 domains with 19 CFIR constructs emerged from the analysis. Inner setting played a significant role in facilitating CC intervention, in which culture, networking, and collaboration and leadership engagement played an essential role in supporting CC activities. Although CC tasks are complex, concerns of losing clinical skill and resource constraints were identified as potential barriers in CC implementations. Criteria for appointing new CCs emerged from the characteristics of individual constructs, in which the individual must be familiar and interested in community health, have good communication skills, and at least 3 years' experience in the primary healthcare setting.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of the CC intervention faces varying challenges in different settings. This is partially resolved through teamwork, guidance from mentors, and support from superiors. The complexity of the responsibility of the CC intervention is perceived as both a validation and a burden. Above all, it is seen as paramount in EnPHC intervention.
METHODS: The study applied mixed-method embedded design to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative approach was used to evaluate sustainability perception from 20 intervention clinics via self-reported assessment form whereas qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interview (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGDs) 14 health care professionals participated in IDI session and were either care coordinators, liaison officers (LOs)/clinic managers, or medical officers-in-charge for the clinic's intervention. Nine FGDs conducted comprised 58 HCPs from various categories.
RESULTS: HCPs from all the 20 clinics involved responded to each listed Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) intervention components as being implemented but the perceived sustainability of these implementation varies between them. Quantitative feedback showed sustainable interventions included risk stratification, non-communicable disease (NCD) screening form, referral within clinics and hospitals, family health team (FHT), MTAC services and mechanisms and medical adherence status. Qualitative feedback highlighted implementation of each intervention components comes with its challenges, and most of it are related to inadequate resources and facilities in clinic. HCPs made initiatives to adapt based on clinical setting to implement the interventions at best level possible, whereby this seems to be one of the core values for sustainability.
CONCLUSION: Overall perceptions among HCPs on sustainability of EnPHC interventions are highly influenced by current experiences with existing resources. Components perceived to have inadequate resources are seen as a challenge to sustain. It's crucial for stakeholders to understand implications affecting implementation process if concerns raised are not addressed and allocation of needed resources to ensure overall successfulness and long term sustainability.
METHODS: We conducted mixed focus groups (FGs) with faculty members from medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nutrition and dietetics, nursing, chiropractic, Chinese medicine, and other health sciences programmes; who were involved in the planning of IPE at institutional or programme level, or who participated in IPE activity. Transcripts were analysed using grounded theory.
RESULTS: We identified 25 barriers and facilitators, clustered under five major categories of commitment, faculty engagement, IPE design, support, and delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of IPE may hinge on actions in 5 stages; commitment, faculty engagement, IPE design, support, and delivery. The processes will require consistent leadership to break down professional silos and enhance collaborative effort in IPE implementation.
METHODS: In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with the intervention design team, healthcare providers and patients in two rounds during the implementation period. A total of 121 individuals in the two rounds, split into different groups, where some of the participants of the FGD were also interviewed individually. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis, with codes being organised into larger themes.
RESULTS: Themes that emerged from the data were around the process of FHT implementation and the advantages of the FHT, which included continuity of health care and improved quality of care. Patients and health care providers were receptive to the FHT concept, and took the effort to adapt the concept in the local settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The FHT concept implemented at 20 public primary health clinics has benefits appreciated by health care providers and patients. Addressing the viable shortcomings would better prepare the current primary healthcare system to scale up the FHT concept nationwide and enhance its feasibility and sustainability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the National Medical Research Register, Ministry of Health Malaysia ( NMRR-17-295-34711 ).
METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was conducted to get in-depth information about medicines use pattern and practice from the general public. Adult people who reported using medicines at the time of study or in the previous month were approached. Two focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The obtained data were analysed using thematic content analysis.
RESULTS: This study found that there are some misunderstanding about the appropriate use of medicines. The majority of the participants reported that they were complying with their medication regimen. However, forgetting to take medicines was stated by 4 participants while 2 participants stopped taking medicines when they felt better. In addition, 10 participants reporting using medicines according to their own knowledge and past experience. Whereas 4 participants took medicines according to other informal resources such as family, friends or the media. Seven participants have experienced side effects with using medicines, 4 of them informed their doctor while 3 participants stopped taking medicines without informing their doctor.
CONCLUSION: There was a misunderstanding about medicines use in terms of medication compliance, self-management of the illness and the resources of information about using medicines. Many efforts are still needed from health care professionals to provide sufficient information about medicines use in order to decrease the risk of inappropriate use of medicines and to achieve better therapeutic outcome.