METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.
RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).
CONCLUSION: Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.
METHODS: Guided by the UK Medical Research Council Framework, this seminal study adopted a qualitative, descriptive approach with content analysis. Data were obtained through 16 semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Themes emerged based on an inductive process using constant comparison (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). The COREQ checklist was used in ensuring rigour.
RESULTS: Three main themes emerged includes: (1) nurses' experiences with current diabetes care practices, (2) stakeholders' views on the development of a NLFB approach, and (3) merging the nurse-led family aspects into the diabetes care. The key challenges are the dominant medical model, lack of specialist nurses, and time. The key facilitators are knowledge and social support.
CONCLUSION: The study recommends stakeholders embrace nursing empowerment strategies and involve families to enhance the nurses' advanced roles and family inclusion in healthcare.
METHODS: Adults with asthma were purposively recruited from an urban primary healthcare clinic for in-depth interviews. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: We interviewed 24 adults. Four themes emerged: (1) Participants believed in the 'hot and cold' concept of illness either as an inherent hot/cold body constitution or the ambient temperature. Hence, participants tried to 'neutralize' body constitution or to 'warm up' the cold temperature that was believed to trigger acute attacks. (2) Participants managed asthma based on past experiences and personal health beliefs as they lacked formal information about asthma and its treatment. (3) Poor communication and variable advice from healthcare practitioners on how to manage their asthma contributed to poor self-management skills. (4) Embarrassment about using inhalers in public and advice from family and friends resulted in a focus on nonpharmacological approaches to asthma self-management practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Asthma self-management practices were learnt experientially and were strongly influenced by sociocultural beliefs and advice from family and friends. Effective self-management needs to be tailored to cultural norms, personalized to the individuals' preferences and clinical needs, adapted to their level of health literacy and underpinned by patient-practitioner partnerships.
PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients contributed to data. Members of the public were involved in the discussion of the results.
METHODS: This study employed a qualitative instrumental case study design intended to compare two groups of students-high-achieving students (n = 14) and low-achieving students (n = 5), enrolled in pre-clinical medical studies at the Universiti Malaya, Malaysia. Data were collected through reflective journals and semi-structured interviews. Regarding journaling, participants were required to recall their learning experiences of the previous academic year. Two analysts coded the data and then compared the codes of high- and low-achieving students. The third analyst reviewed the codes. Themes were identified iteratively, working towards comparing the learning processes of high- and low-achieving students.
RESULTS: Data analysis revealed four themes-motivation and expectation, study methods, self-management, and flexibility of mindset. First, high-achieving students were more motivated and had higher academic expectations than low-achieving students. Second, high-achieving students adopted study planning and deep learning approaches, whereas low-achieving students adopted superficial learning approaches. Third, in contrast to low-achieving students, high-achieving students exhibited better time management and studied consistently. Finally, high-achieving students proactively sought external support and made changes to overcome challenges. In contrast, low-achieving students were less resilient and tended to avoid challenges.
CONCLUSION: Based on the theory of action, high-achieving students utilize positive governing variables, whereas low-achieving students are driven by negative governing variables. Hence, governing variable-based remediation is needed to help low-achieving students interrogate the motives behind their actions and realign positive governing variables, actions, and intended outcomes.Key MessagesThis study found four themes describing the differences between high- and low-achieving pre-clinical medical students: motivation and expectation, study methods, self-management, and flexibility of mindset.Based on the theory of action approach, high-achieving pre-clinical medical students are fundamentally different from their low-achieving peers in terms of their governing variables, with the positive governing variables likely to have guided them to act in a manner beneficial to and facilitating desirable academic performance.Governing variable-based remediation may help students interrogate the motives of their actions.
METHODS: This study uses a mixed methods design. It focuses primarily on qualitative data to understand processes and strategies and to identify specific areas that can be improved through stakeholder engagement in the screening program. Quantitative data play a dual role in supporting the selection of participants for the qualitative study based on program monitoring data and assessing inequalities in screening and program implementation in healthcare facilities in Malaysia. Meanwhile, literature review identifies existing strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening. Additionally, the knowledge-to-action framework is integrated to ensure that the research findings lead to practical improvements to the colorectal cancer screening program.
DISCUSSION: Through this complex mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, this study will explore the complex interplay of population- and systems-level factors that influence screening rates. It involves identifying barriers to effective colorectal cancer screening in Malaysia, comparing current strategies with international best practices, and providing evidence-based recommendations to improve the local screening program.
METHODS: This study was a narrative review using literature in the last 10 years identified by web-based search on PubMed and Scopus using keywords. A total of 33 articles that were closely related to the field and application in dentistry were included. The methodology, main results, and future research recommendations, if applicable, were extracted and reviewed.
RESULTS: The authors in this study had identified several areas such as orofacial pain and pain control research, dental anxiety, dental education, oral healthcare perceptions and access, living with dental diseases and dental treatment experience in which the phenomenological method was used to gain an in-depth understanding of the topic.
CONCLUSIONS: There are several advantages of using the phenomenological research method, such as the small sample size needed, the diverse and unique perspective that can be obtained and the ability to improve current understanding, especially from the first-person perspective.
METHODS: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.