Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
PLoS Med ; 17(11): e1003434, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33180775

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Effective health system interventions may help address the disproportionate burden of diabetes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We assessed the impact of health system interventions to improve outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes in LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, African Index Medicus, LILACS, and Global Index Medicus from inception of each database through February 24, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of health system interventions targeting adults with type 2 diabetes in LMICs. Eligible studies reported at least 1 of the following outcomes: glycemic change, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness. We conducted a meta-analysis for the glycemic outcome of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). GRADE and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care methods were used to assess risk of bias for the glycemic outcome and to prepare a summary of findings table. Of the 12,921 references identified in searches, we included 39 studies in the narrative review of which 19 were cluster RCTs and 20 were individual RCTs. The greatest number of studies were conducted in the East Asia and Pacific region (n = 20) followed by South Asia (n = 7). There were 21,080 total participants enrolled across included studies and 10,060 total participants in the meta-analysis of HbA1c when accounting for the design effect of cluster RCTs. Non-glycemic outcomes of mortality, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness had sparse data availability that precluded quantitative pooling. In the meta-analysis of HbA1c from 35 of the included studies, the mean difference was -0.46% (95% CI -0.60% to -0.31%, I2 87.8%, p < 0.001) overall, -0.37% (95% CI -0.64% to -0.10%, I2 60.0%, n = 7, p = 0.020) in multicomponent clinic-based interventions, -0.87% (-1.20% to -0.53%, I2 91.0%, n = 13, p < 0.001) in pharmacist task-sharing studies, and -0.27% (-0.50% to -0.04%, I2 64.1%, n = 7, p = 0.010) in trials of diabetes education or support alone. Other types of interventions had few included studies. Eight studies were at low risk of bias for the summary assessment of glycemic control, 15 studies were at unclear risk, and 16 studies were at high risk. The certainty of evidence for glycemic control by subgroup was moderate for multicomponent clinic-based interventions but was low or very low for other intervention types. Limitations include the lack of consensus definitions for health system interventions, differences in the quality of underlying studies, and sparse data availability for non-glycemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that health system interventions for type 2 diabetes may be effective in improving glycemic control in LMICs, but few studies are available from rural areas or low- or lower-middle-income countries. Multicomponent clinic-based interventions had the strongest evidence for glycemic benefit among intervention types. Further research is needed to assess non-glycemic outcomes and to study implementation in rural and low-income settings.


Assuntos
Planejamento em Saúde Comunitária , Países em Desenvolvimento/estatística & dados numéricos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Educação em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Ásia , Planejamento em Saúde Comunitária/economia , Programas Governamentais/estatística & dados numéricos , Educação em Saúde/economia , Humanos , Assistência Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Qualidade de Vida
3.
Acad Med ; 2024 Feb 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38412473

RESUMO

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop an instrument to measure medical trainees' perceptions of justice in clinical learning environments. METHOD: Between 2019 and 2023, the authors conducted a multiyear, multi-institutional, multiphase study to develop a 16-item justice measure with 4 dimensions: interpersonal, informational, procedural, and distributive. The authors gathered validity evidence based on test content, internal structure, and relationships with other variables across 3 phases. Phase 1 involved drafting items and gathering evidence that items measured intended dimensions. Phase 2 involved analyzing relevance of items for target groups, examining interitem correlations and factor loadings in a preliminary analysis, and obtaining reliability estimates. Phase 3 involved a confirmatory factor analysis and collecting convergent and discriminant validity evidence. RESULTS: In phase 1, 63 of 91 draft items were retained following a content validation exercise gauging how well items measured targeted dimensions (mean [SD] item ratings within dimensions, 4.16 [0.36] to 4.39 [0.34]) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating not at all well and 5 indicating extremely well). In phase 2, 30 items were removed due to low factor loadings (i.e., < 0.40), and 4 items per dimension were selected (factor loadings, 0.42-0.89). In phase 3, a confirmatory factor analysis supported the 4-dimension model (χ2 = 610.14, P < .001; comparative fit index = 0.90, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.87, root mean squared error of approximation = 0.11, standardized root mean squared residual = 0.06), with convergent and discriminant validity evidence showing hypothesized positive correlations with a justice measure (r = 0.93, P < .001), trait positive affect (r = 0.46, P < .001), and emotional stability (r = 0.33, P < .001) and negative correlations with trait negative affect (r = -0.39, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the measure's potential utility in understanding justice perceptions and designing targeted interventions.

4.
Acad Med ; 98(10): 1196-1203, 2023 10 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37099399

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To examine whether gender differences exist in medical trainees' (residents' and fellows') evaluations of faculty at a number of clinical departments. METHOD: The authors conducted a single-institution (University of Minnesota Medical School) retrospective cohort analysis of 5,071 trainee evaluations of 447 faculty (for which trainee and faculty gender information was available) completed between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2022. The authors developed and employed a 17-item measure of clinical teaching effectiveness, with 4 dimensions: overall teaching effectiveness, role modeling, facilitating knowledge acquisition, and teaching procedures. Using both between- and within-subject samples, they conducted analyses to examine gender differences among the trainees making ratings (rater effects), the faculty receiving ratings (ratee effects), and whether faculty ratings differed by trainee gender (interaction effects). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant rater effect for the overall teaching effectiveness and facilitating knowledge acquisition dimensions (B = -0.28 and -0.14, 95% CI: [-0.35, -0.21] and [-0.20, -0.09], respectively, P < .001, medium corrected effect sizes between -0.34 and -0.54); female trainees rated male and female faculty lower than male trainees on both dimensions. There also was a statistically significant ratee effect for the overall teaching effectiveness and role modeling dimensions (B = -0.09 and -0.08, 95% CI: [-0.16, -0.02] and [-0.13, -0.04], P = .01 and < .001, respectively, small to medium corrected effect sizes between -0.16 and -0.44); female faculty were rated lower than male faculty on both dimensions. There was not a statistically significant interaction effect. CONCLUSIONS: Female trainees rated faculty lower than male trainees and female faculty were rated lower than male faculty on 2 teaching dimensions each. The authors encourage researchers to continue to examine the reasons for the evaluation differences observed and how implicit bias interventions might help to address them.


Assuntos
Internato e Residência , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Docentes de Medicina , Estudos de Coortes , Faculdades de Medicina
5.
Am J Trop Med Hyg ; 101(5): 1070-1072, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31482781

RESUMO

Genitourinary tuberculosis (TB) is a rare but well-described form of extrapulmonary TB. We present a case of a 35-year-old man from Ethiopia with scrotal swelling and fever who was found to have epididymo-orchitis due to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The patient presented to the hospital multiple times before undergoing operative debridement with fine needle aspiration and tissue biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. He improved with antituberculous therapy. Patients with TB risk factors presenting with epididymitis that is refractory to empiric antibiotic therapy warrant consideration of TB epididymitis. Our case demonstrates the high index of suspicion required to establish a diagnosis of genitourinary TB.


Assuntos
Mycobacterium tuberculosis/isolamento & purificação , Orquite/microbiologia , Tuberculose dos Genitais Masculinos/microbiologia , Adulto , Antituberculosos/uso terapêutico , Epididimo/microbiologia , Epididimo/patologia , Etiópia/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Tuberculose dos Genitais Masculinos/tratamento farmacológico , Tuberculose dos Genitais Masculinos/epidemiologia , Tuberculose dos Genitais Masculinos/patologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA