scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract Background Use of healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). This study describes how junior learners perceive and classify healthcare terminology in IPE settings. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study involving 29 medical, 14 nursing, and 2 physician assistant students who had previously attended or were registered to participate in educational activities at McMaster University’s Centre for Simulation-Based Learning. 23 participants identified “inclusive” or “exclusive” terminology in a series of scenarios used for IPE workshops using an online survey. We collated lists of “inclusive” and “exclusive” terminology from survey responses, and characterized the frequencies of included words. 22 students participated in focus group discussions on attitudes and perceptions around healthcare terminology after attending IPE workshops. We identified themes through an iterative direct content analysis of verbatim transcripts. Results Students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (28% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by > 50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, lack of familiarity with terminology was often attributed to inexperience, simulation was considered a safe space for learning terminology, and learning terminology was a valued IPE objective. Conclusions While students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in IPE learning materials, categorization of terminology as “inclusive” or “exclusive” is inconsistent. Moreover, healthcare terminology is perceived as a desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract Background: Use of healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). This study describes how junior learners perceive and classify healthcare terminology in IPE settings.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving 29 medical, 14 nursing, and 2 physician assistant students who had previously attended or were registered to participate in educational activities at McMaster University’s Centre for Simulation-Based Learning. 23 participants identified “inclusive” or “exclusive” terminology in a series of scenarios used for IPE workshops using an online survey. We collated lists of “inclusive” and “exclusive” terminology from survey responses, and characterized the frequencies of included words. 22 students participated in focus group discussions on attitudes and perceptions around healthcare terminology after attending IPE workshops. We identified themes through an iterative direct content analysis of verbatim transcripts.Results: Students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, lack of familiarity with terminology was often attributed to inexperience, simulation was considered a safe space for learning terminology, and learning terminology was a valued IPE objective.Conclusions: While students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in IPE learning materials, categorization of terminology as “inclusive” or “exclusive” is inconsistent. Moreover, healthcare terminology is perceived as a desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Prior Experiences

Abstract Background: Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology.Results: 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE.Conclusions: Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Prior Experiences

Abstract Background Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how complex terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology. Results 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by > 50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE. Conclusions Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals Talking the talk in junior interprofessional education: Is healthcare terminology a barrier or facilitator?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamara Nadarajah ◽  
Arden Azim ◽  
Derya Uzelli Yılmaz ◽  
Matthew Sibbald
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Safe Space ◽  
Word Count ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Physician Assistant Students ◽  
Prior Experiences

Abstract Background: Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology.Results: 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE.Conclusions: Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

scholarly journals A mixed methods approach to determine the climate of interprofessional education among medical and health sciences students

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabil Sulaiman ◽  
Youssef Rishmawy ◽  
Amal Hussein ◽  
Maha Saber-Ayad ◽  
Hamzah Alzubaidi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Health Sciences Students

Abstract Background High-quality patient care is a complex phenomenon that requires collaboration among healthcare professionals. Research has shown that Interprofessional Education (IPE) carries promise to improve collaborative work and patient care. So far, collaboration among various health professionals remains a challenge. Very few focus group discussions to determine the medical students’ readiness and positive attitudes towards IPE have been reported from the Arabian context. Methods A two-staged sequential mixed methods study was conducted among medical, dental, pharmacy, and health sciences students of the University of Sharjah United Arab Emirates. The perspectives of students toward IPE and collaborative practice were first gathered by administering a validated instrument, Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). This was followed by focused group discussions. A quantitative as well as a qualitative data analysis was performed. Results This study cohort included 282 students. All respondents showed readiness to adopt IPE as all statements of the RIPLS inventory scored high median scores. All participants showed positive attitudes and readiness towards IPE. Three main domains of themes were generated from focus group discussions; prior knowledge, need for IPE framework and its implementation. Information workload, lack of clarity and less focused teaching pedagogies of IPE were considered as perceived barriers. Conclusion This study demonstrated a substantial agreement of medical and health sciences students towards readiness and perceived effectiveness of IPE. Educators are urged to embed new IPE programs into existing curricular frameworks, which can potentially enhance collaborative learning and improve quality of patient care.

scholarly journals Care Across Campus: Athletic Training, Nursing, and Occupational Therapy Student Experiences in an Interprofessional Simulation

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 332-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Briyana L. M. Morrell ◽  
Alison M. Nichols ◽  
Craig A. Voll ◽  
Kathleen E. Hetzler ◽  
Jane Toon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Occupational Therapy ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Athletic Training ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Occupational Therapy Students ◽  
Positive Attitudes

Context: This study explored health care students' experiences after participation in an interprofessional simulation. Interprofessional education incorporates students from several health care professions in a controlled, collaborative learning environment. Athletic training students are not well represented in interprofessional education literature. Objective: This study sought to explore the attitudes of athletic training, nursing, and occupational therapy students toward other professions after their participation in an interprofessional simulation. Design: This article describes the results of the qualitative portion of a mixed-methods study. Focus group discussions related to elements of the Interprofessional Attitude Scale to explore participants' attitudes toward other professions. Researchers analyzed transcribed focus group discussions for themes. Setting: This study occurred in a private midsized Midwestern university. Patients or Other Participants: Seventy-nine students, representing athletic training, nursing, and occupational therapy, participated in the simulation; a sample of 13 of these participated in the focus groups. Intervention(s): Students in all professions cared for or observed the care of a standardized patient from the time of a spinal cord injury on the football field through an ambulance ride and subsequent emergency and inpatient care. Students collaborated and communicated with one another. Faculty conducted debriefing after the simulation and before the focus groups. Main Outcome Measure(s): Focus groups included relevant questions from the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale, and themes were identified from participants' responses. Results: Researchers identified 4 themes from the focus group discussions: collaboration, respect, knowledge of other professions, and communication. These themes also mirror elements of the Interprofessional Education Collaborative's core competencies of interprofessional collaborative practice. Conclusions: After the simulation, students expressed positive attitudes toward other professions. This study suggests that athletic training, nursing, and occupational therapy students have positive attitudes toward each other's professions after an interprofessional simulation activity.

scholarly journals Medication adherence, self-efficacy and health literacy among patients with glaucoma: a mixed-methods study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e039788
Author(s):  
Maria Achilleos ◽  
Anastasios Merkouris ◽  
Andreas Charalambous ◽  
Evridiki Papastavrou
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Stage 1

IntroductionAs the world population ages, glaucoma is becoming an increasingly significant cause of blindness. A key component in the management of glaucoma is the use of prescribed medications and the adherence to treatment. However, there is evidence of low adherence to prescribed medication in chronic diseases, such as glaucoma. This study aims to explore the level of medication adherence, self-efficacy, social support and health literacy among the patients with glaucoma and to determine if there are any correlations between them. The ultimate aim is to use the information to develop an educational programme for patients with glaucoma at a later stage.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods study which includes two stages: a descriptive study (stage 1) and focus group discussions (stage 2). Sample: Patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension, using at least one kind of drops, from two ophthalmology clinics. Selected measures include: The Glaucoma Treatment Compliance Assessment Tool, The European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire, The Glaucoma Medication Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Two focus groups will be used for the collection of qualitative data, aiming to enrich the study with the patients’ experiences. The data will be analysed with SPSS, using descriptive and inferential statistics for stage 1 whereas content analysis will be used for the data from the focus group discussions (stage 2).Ethics and disseminationPermission to conduct the study was received from the National Bioethics Committee and the board of management of the two ophthalmology clinics. All participants will be informed fully on the purpose and methods of the study. Consent forms will be signed and at any time participants will have the right to withdraw. Confidentiality and the protection of data will be respected at all times.

scholarly journals Ensuring Quality in a Foreign Language Tutoring Program for Future Teachers

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-32
Author(s):  
Deissy Angélica Velandia
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Tutoring Program ◽  
Physical Resources ◽  
French And English

This article reports on an exploratory, mixed methods study aimed at identifying the methodological and epistemological criteria necessary to ensure the quality and a self-revision process of a pilot tutoring program offered to students enrolled in the BEd in philology and languages (English and French programs) at Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota. Ten students of the French and English Philology programs and six tutors voluntarily participated in the research. The data were collected through document reviews, focus group discussions, and questionnaires completed by the tutors and tutees. The study revealed that a comprehensive, personalized tutoring plan was needed. Likewise, self-efficacy development, human capital, as well as technological and physical resources must be considered in order to determine the weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and overall impact of the program.

scholarly journals Taking hold of hand trauma in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 1784-93
Author(s):  
Jenousha Naidoo ◽  
Pragashnie Govender ◽  
Deshini Naidoo
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Occupational Therapy ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Tendon Injuries ◽  
Hand Injuries ◽  
Hand Trauma ◽  
Focus Group Discussions ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Kwazulu Natal

Background: Trauma in KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa constitutes at least 17.8% of overall emergency cases, with hand trauma being common. Aim: Based on these statistics, the authors of this study aimed to identify and describe the most common traumatic hand injuries managed in the province including current trends and intervention practices of occupational therapists to inform future intervention. Methods: Using a mixed-method convergent parallel design, 41 therapists completed an online survey, and 12 therapists participated in two focus group discussions. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the audio-recorded and transcribed focus group discussions were analysed deductively using thematic analysis.Findings: Flexor tendon injuries (88%), extensor tendon injuries (73%), fractures (83%) and combined hand injuries (73%) were the most common injuries noted. Sufficient theoretical knowledge (95%), clinical judgement (93%), available resources (88%), relevant practical experience (83%) and surgeon hand therapy protocols (88%) were identified as essential in managing traumatic hand injuries. Challenges included having limited resources, late referrals and poor communication hindering multidisciplinary practice. Conclusion: Therapists face challenges in managing traumatic hand injuries, which inhibits optimal intervention planning. These factors may inevitably negatively influence outcomes achieved through occupational therapy for this group of patients. Keywords: Occupational therapy; traumatic hand injuries; hand rehabilitation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document