Listen to my story: Contribution of patients to their healthcare through effective communication with doctors.

In the era of patient centered healthcare, patients are educated, more aware and demanding than ever. However, there is a significant misalignment between patients and doctors due to improper communication resulting in broken patient-doctor therapeutic relationships and degraded quality of healthcare. This suggests that patients have a greater and mature role to play in their healthcare. The paper aims to fill this gap by studying the contribution of patients in their healthcare through patientdoctor communication in selected Indian multispeciality hospitals. Qualitative multi-case study was steered and in-depth interviews of thirteen patients, twelve doctors were conducted along with the secondary data analysis of more than 600 pages of the documents from the official websites of the sample hospitals. Grounded theory three level coding revealed the themes of contribution of patients in through effective communication. The results indicate that patients contribute to their healthcare through effective communication by demonstrating association with doctors, reflecting reciprocally, resolving communication challenges and supporting their overall treatment process. The paper extends the literature on patient's contribution in their healthcare. It presents clear and succinct implementable implications and distinctive ways in which patients cooperate with the doctors, work mutually, improves communication and strengthen their overall healthcare process.

Musculoskeletal disorders among insurance office employees: A case study.

BACKGROUND: Insurance employees in India are overworked, and their jobs demand prolonged sitting hours in the office; this can lead to musculoskeletal disorders through consistent stress on the musculoskeletal system. The present study includes implications for the reduction of work-related musculoskeletal disorders to minimise sick leaves and medical expenses. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorder-related issues among employees working in insurance offices and to analyse the association of pain symptoms with risk factors including demographic, occupational and psychosocial factors. METHODS: The study included 400 employees from different insurance offices. Data were collected using a questionnaire about pain, a flexibility test (sit-and-reach test) and a video-based analysis of working postures using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) method. RESULTS: The prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal symptoms was the highest in the neck (57.2%), shoulders (38.5%), upper back (28.5%) and lower back (46.2%). CONCLUSIONS: A high persistence of musculoskeletal symptoms was observed in the neck, lower back, upper back and shoulders; the presence of these symptoms was strongly associated with predominant factors: assumed awkward posture, body mass index, job demand, RULA score and infrequent rest breaks. Additional research is required for testing the effect of interventions involving stretching exercises and/or installation of ergonomic workstations.

When to ally & when to acquire.

Acquisitions and alliances are two pillars of growth strategy. But most businesses don't treat the two as alternative mechanisms for attaining goals. Consequently, companies take over firms they should have collaborated with, and vice versa, and make a mess of both acquisitions and alliances. It's easy to see why companies don't weigh the relative merits and demerits of acquisitions and alliances before choosing horses for courses. The two strategies differ in many ways: Acquisition deals are competitive, based on market prices, and risky; alliances are cooperative, negotiated, and not so risky. Companies habitually deploy acquisitions to increase scale or cut costs and use partnerships to enter new markets, customer segments, and regions. Moreover, a company's initial experiences often turn into blinders. If the firm pulls off an alliance or two, it tends to enter into alliances even when circumstances demand acquisitions. Organizational barriers also stand in the way. In many companies, an M&A group, which reports to the finance head, handles acquisitions, while a separate business development unit looks after alliances. The two teams work out of different locations, jealously guard turf, and, in effect, prevent companies from comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the strategies. But companies could improve their results, the authors argue, if they compared the two strategies to determine which is best suited to the situation at hand. Firms such as Cisco that use acquisitions and alliances appropriately grow faster than rivals do. The authors provide a framework to help organizations systematically decide between acquisition and alliance by analyzing three sets of factors: the resources and synergies they desire, the marketplace they compete in, and their competencies at collaborating.