Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on prescription patterns and antibiotic use: Insights from three military health facilities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health systems globally and there are suggestions it impacted antibiotics prescribing patterns in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prescribing patterns in three Nigerian military health facilities and investigate the factors associated with antibiotic prescriptions. METHODS: This was a two-year cross-sectional retrospective study. Three hospitals and a total of 11,590 prescriptions were purposively and conveniently sampled respectively. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and International Network of Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD) prescribing indicators were used to assess for polypharmacy, injection use, use of antibiotics, use of generic drugs and prescriptions from essential drug lists for the periods of the pandemic and before the pandemic. Indicators from both periods were compared for statistical significance using the independent t-test. Generalized linear modelling was applied to assess the factors associated with antibiotic prescriptions. The relationship between the receipt of antibiotics and independent variables was presented using incident risk ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Our findings showed that all five WHO/INRUD prescribing indicators were above the reference limit for the two-year study period. The study found there was a significant statistical difference between the COVID- and non-COVID-19 periods, with polypharmacy and antibiotic use indicators elevated during the pandemic compared to the latter. COVID-19 (IRR = 1.09), comorbidity (IRR = 1.74), pregnancy (IRR = 0.93), out-of-pocket payments (IRR = 1.10) and the inpatient department (IRR = 1.51) were associated with antibiotic prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: This provides insight on impact of the pandemic on prescription patterns and advocates for stewardship programs in clinical settings to ensure the rational use of drugs.

Effectiveness of educational interventions on hypertensive patients' self-management behaviours: an umbrella review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Although different educational interventions have been widely used to manage and treat hypertension, alone or in combination with other interventions, there is a significant variation in their claimed effectiveness. REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this umbrella review is to determine the effectiveness of educational interventions, alone or in combination with other interventions, for improving blood pressure control and self-management practices among hypertensive patients. The review question is: Do educational interventions, alone or in combination with other interventions, improve self-management practices among patients with hypertension? METHODS: We will conduct a review of systematic reviews involving studies that implemented educational interventions, alone or in combination with other interventions, designed to change self-care practices among hypertensive patients who are 18 years and above, regardless of their sex and ethnicity. Following the guidelines set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement, a comprehensive literature search will be conducted from September to December 2023 on six electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar. Search terms will be developed using database-specific indexed terms and text words derived from the review aim. We will present the effects of the educational interventions, alone or in combination with other interventions, on hypertension self-management practices. We will report the outcome data with 95% CIs for each study. Relative risk, mean differences or ORs will be used, depending on the measuring indices in each study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this study will use aggregated data from previously published systematic reviews. However, we have registered the protocol in PROSPERO. We confirm that all methods will be performed following the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings from this study will be disseminated through presentations at academic conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022375581.

Incarcerated individuals and education programmes in Nigeria: A task for social workers.

Much is not known about education programmes for Nigerian incarcerated individuals. Consequently, different correctional institutions worldwide have different forms of correctional education offered to incarcerated individuals. Nigerian incarcerated individuals perceive that there are implementations of education programmes offered to them. However, little or nothing is known about how incarcerated individuals perceive these education programmes. To this end, this study ascertains the incarcerated individuals' perception of education programmes as well as the expectations of social work profession in ensuring that incarcerated individuals in correctional institutions are provided with quality education. In-depth interviews involving 20 convicted incarcerated individuals from Owerri correctional centre were conducted. Thematic analysis was used in analyzing data generated for the study. Findings show that education programmes are available and essential, but the quality of the programme does not go down well with the incarcerated individuals. It also revealed that incarcerated individuals were not allowed to decide on the type of education programme to be involved in. To this end, their participation in the programme is jeopardized. The findings further revealed that little or nothing is known about social workers in prison education. Therefore, the inclusion of correctional social workers as an integral part of education programmes that aim to reform, rehabilitate and reintegrate incarcerated individuals becomes necessary.

Beyond Patient Characteristics: A Narrative Review of Contextual Factors Influencing Involuntary Admissions in Mental Health Care.

Variations in the rates of involuntary admission (IA) reflect the influence of unexplained contextual variables that are typically too heterogeneous to be included in systematic reviews. This paper attempts to gather and analyze factors unrelated to the patients that have been linked to IA. The articles included in this review were selected by iteratively searching four electronic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Web of Science). A total of 54 studies from 19 different countries and regions, including 14 European countries, the United States, Canada, China, Vietnam, and Taiwan, were selected. The factors were categorized as service-related factors, impactful events, seasonal and temporal factors, mental health legislation, staff factors, and public attitudes. The factors rarely act in isolation but rather interact and reinforce each other, causing a greater influence on IA. This paper explains how these factors present opportunities for robust and sustainable interventions to reduce IAs. The paper also identifies future directions for research, such as examining the effects of economic recessions. Enhancing global reporting standards is essential to validate future research and support further in-depth studies. The complexity of the factors influencing IA and the implicit role of society suggest that resolving it will require social change.

A non-randomised controlled study to assess the effectiveness of a new proactive multidisciplinary care intervention for older people living with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care may improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service in improving the wellbeing and quality of life (QoL) of older people living with severe frailty. METHODS: A community-based non-randomised controlled study. Participants (≥65 years, electronic Frailty Index ≥0.36) received either the new integrated care service plus usual care, or usual care alone. Data collection was at three time points: baseline, 2-4 weeks, and 10-14 weeks. The primary outcome was patient wellbeing (symptoms and other concerns) at 2-4 weeks, measured using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS); the secondary outcome was QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L. To test duration of effect and safety, wellbeing and QoL were also measured at 10-14 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise and compare intervention and control groups (eligible but had not accessed the new service), with t-test, Chi-Square, or Mann-Whitney U tests (as appropriate) to test differences at each time point. Generalised linear modelling, with propensity score matching, was used for further group comparisons. Data were analysed using STATA v17. RESULTS: 199 intervention and 54 control participants were recruited. At baseline, intervention and control groups were similar in age, gender, ethnicity, living status, and body mass index, but not functional status or area deprivation score. At 2-4 weeks, wellbeing had improved in the intervention group but worsened in the control (median IPOS -5 versus 2, p<0.001). QoL improved in the intervention group but was unchanged in the control (median EQ-5D-5L 0.12, versus 0.00, p<0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, and living status, the intervention group had an average total IPOS score reduction at 2-4 weeks of 6.34 (95% CI: -9.01: -4.26, p<0.05); this improvement was sustained, with an average total IPOS score reduction at 10-14 weeks of 6.36 (95% CI: -8.91:-3.80, p<0.05). After propensity score matching based on functional status/area deprivation, modelling showed similar results, with a reduction in IPOS score at 2-4 weeks in the intervention group of 7.88 (95% CI: -12.80: -2.96, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service may have improved the overall wellbeing and quality of life of older people living with frailty at 2-4 weeks and the improvement in wellbeing was sustained at three months. ETHICS APPROVAL: NHS Research Ethics Committee 18/YH/0470 and IRAS-250981. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry (registration date: 01/08/2022, registration number: ISRCTN10613839).