RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare (PHC) setting is regarded as a central pillar to the healthcare system as it tends to be the first point of contact for patients. Interprofessional collaboration between healthcare professionals (HCP) in PHC settings remains unexplored in the Middle East. AIM: The objective of this study was to explore the perspectives of HCP in PHC centers towards interprofessional collaboration and to identify the facilitators and the barriers to collaborative practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web- and paper-based survey involving HCP in PHC centers was conducted in Qatar. Descriptive statistics as well as Student's t-test and One Way ANOVA test were performed to determine statistical differences in Readiness for Interprofessional Learning (RIPLs) scores between demographic groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1415 participants out of a potential 2500 HCP practicing in Qatar completed the survey (response rate, 56.6%). HCP generally indicated a positive attitude and readiness towards interprofessional collaboration. Furthermore, physicians had slightly more positive readiness towards understanding their professional identity than other healthcare professionals. Participants with previous interprofessional collaboration or interprofessional education experiences exhibited greater, but non-significant positive attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration compared to those without previous experiences. Identified barriers and facilitators included are conceptual rather than structural. Facilitating factors included HCP readiness and perceived benefit of interprofessional collaboration effectiveness in the work setting, increased professional satisfaction, respect between healthcare professions, appreciation of others' contribution, leadership, and institutional support. Top perceived barriers included leadership and support, time commitment, and resources constraints. CONCLUSION: HCP in PHC settings have demonstrated the willingness and readiness to engage in interprofessional collaboration. Recent reforms within the PHC setting consist of promoting interprofessional teams and collaborative culture. However, it is imperative to provide training and education to foster and support interprofessional collaborative practices.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items. CONCLUSION: Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.
