Patient adherence to an oral rehydration solution intervention to prevent dehydration following ileostomy creation: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery for ileostomy creation frequently experience postoperative dehydration and subsequent renal injury. The use of oral rehydration solutions (ORS) has been shown to prevent dehydration, but compliance may be variable. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 patients who received a postoperative hydration kit and dehydration education to assess barriers and facilitators to compliance with ORS kit instructions. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed five themes affecting patient adherence to the ORS intervention: (1) patient's perception of the effectiveness of the ORS solution, (2) existing co-morbidities, (3) kit quality and taste of the ORS product, (4) quality of the dehydration education, and (5) social support. CONCLUSIONS: Given that patient adherence can greatly affect the success of an ORS intervention, the design of future ORS interventions should emphasize the educational component, the "patient friendliness" of the ORS kit, and ways that social supports can be leveraged to increase adherence.

Guiding Principles for Writing About Immigrants and Immigrant Health.

This perspective identifies harmful phrasing and frames in current clinician and researcher work relating to immigrant health and provides equity-centered alternatives. Recommendations are organized within two broad categories, one focused on shifting terminology toward more humanizing language and the second focused on changing frames around immigration discourse. With regards to shifting terminology, this includes: 1) avoiding language that conflates immigrants with criminality (i.e., "illegal"); 2) using person-first language (i.e., "person applying for asylum" or "detained person" rather than "asylum-seeker" or "detainee"); 3) avoiding comparisons to "native" populations to mean non-foreign-born populations, as this contributes to the erasure of Native Americans and indigenous people; 4) avoiding hyperbolic and stigmatizing "crisis" language about immigrants; and 5) understanding inherent limitations of terms like "refugee," "asylum seeker," "undocumented" that are legal not clinical terms. With regards to challenging dominant frames, recommendations include: 6) avoiding problematization of certain borders compared to others (i.e., U.S.-Mexico versus U.S.- Canada border) that contributes to selectively subjecting people to heightened surveillance; 7) recognizing the heterogeneity among immigrants, such as varying reasons for migration along a continuum of agency, ranging from voluntary to involuntary; 8) avoiding setting up a refugee vs. migrant dichotomy, such that only the former is worthy of sympathy; and 9) representing mistrust among immigrants as justified, instead shifting focus to clinicians, researchers, and healthcare systems who must build or rebuild trustworthiness. Ensuring inclusive and humanizing language use and frames is one critical dimension of striving for immigrant health equity.