Influence of a values clarification workshop on residents training at Catholic Hospital programs

Abstract Background Malaria diagnosis in many malaria-endemic countries relies mainly on the use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). The majority of commercial RDTs used in Africa detect the Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2). pfhrp2/3 gene deletions can therefore lead to false-negative RDT results. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of PCR-confirmed, false-negative P. falciparum RDT results in Monrovia, Liberia. Methods PfHRP2-based RDT (Paracheck Pf®) and microscopy results from 1038 individuals with fever or history of fever (n = 951) and pregnant women at first antenatal care (ANC) visit (n = 87) enrolled in the Saint Joseph’s Catholic Hospital (Monrovia) from March to July 2019 were used to assess the frequency of false-negative RDT results. True–false negatives were confirmed by detecting the presence of P. falciparum DNA by quantitative PCR in samples from individuals with discrepant RDT and microscopy results. Samples that were positive by 18S rRNA qPCR but negative by PfHRP2-RDT were subjected to multiplex qPCR assay for detection of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3. Results One-hundred and eighty-six (19.6%) and 200 (21.0%) of the 951 febrile participants had a P. falciparum-positive result by RDT and microscopy, respectively. Positivity rate increased with age and the reporting of joint pain, chills and shivers, vomiting and weakness, and decreased with the presence of coughs and nausea. The positivity rate at first ANC visit was 5.7% (n = 5) and 8% (n = 7) by RDT and microscopy, respectively. Out of 207 Plasmodium infections detected by microscopy, 22 (11%) were negative by RDT. qPCR confirmed absence of P. falciparum DNA in the 16 RDT-negative but microscopy-positive samples which were available for molecular testing. Among the 14 samples that were positive by qPCR but negative by RDT and microscopy, 3 only amplified pfldh, and among these 3 all were positive for pfhrp2 and pfhrp3. Conclusion There is no qPCR-confirmed evidence of false-negative RDT results due to pfhrp2/pfhrp3 deletions in this study conducted in Monrovia (Liberia). This indicates that these deletions are not expected to affect the performance of PfHRP2-based RDTs for the diagnosis of malaria in Liberia. Nevertheless, active surveillance for the emergence of PfHRP2 deletions is required.

Download Full-text

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

Medical Decision Making ◽

10.1177/0272989x20977885 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (1) ◽

pp. 51-59

Author(s):

Gisèle Diendéré ◽

Imen Farhat ◽

Holly Witteman ◽

Ruth Ndjaboue

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Family Medicine ◽

Risk Communication ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Clinical Encounter ◽

Values Clarification ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

Download Full-text