Bio: Joanna Gotlib is an academic researcher from Medical University of Warsaw. The author has contributed to research in topics: Public health & Evidence-based practice. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 117 publications receiving 342 citations.
TL;DR: The present article describes the main premises emerging from the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare such as the regulation of access to healthcare services for the citizens of the EU Member States and the main tasks and the functioning of National Contact Points which were established by the said Directive.
Abstract: The present article describes the main premises emerging from the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare such as the regulation of access to healthcare services for the citizens of the EU Member States and the main tasks and the functioning of National Contact Points which were established by the said Directive. The paper introduces briefly the administrative procedures concerning rendering and receiving health care services within the limits of cross-border health care – both from the perspective of the Member State of affiliation and the Member State of treatment.
TL;DR: The results confirm that the topic of patient safety is generally not explicitly taught, rather it remains a hidden element within the curriculum, taught across many subjects, and the WHO guidelines for teaching patient safety are currently underutilized.
TL;DR: The authors analyzed Facebook comments related to the five events of the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines and established their main anti-vaccine themes, which can be divided into 12 categories.
TL;DR: EBP training can improve nursing students’ capacity in healthcare provision and teaching EBP competencies along undergraduate nursing curricula should be a high priority at nursing programmes.
Abstract: Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the appropriate approach to guide healthcare personnel in their clinical practice. Despite the importance of EBP, undergraduate nursing students are not very much engaged and have a lack of knowledge and skills. Aim: The aim of this study was to gather, assess and synthesize evidence on educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice competencies in traditional undergraduate nursing students. Methods: This is a scoping review on sixteen English and non-English databases. A data extraction form was established including authors, year of publication, country, types of participant, specific objectives, study design, educational intervention, comparison if existed, and outcomes of significance. Results: The search strategy retrieved 8901 records in total. After screening for duplicates and eligibility, 20 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Improvement in EBP domains such as knowledge, skills, attitudes/behaviours, EBP beliefs, use, practice, level of evidence, critical thinking and future use of EBP were mentioned and assessed in different studies. Conclusions: EBP training can improve nursing students’ capacity in healthcare provision. Teaching EBP competencies along undergraduate nursing curricula should be a high priority at nursing programmes. The use of innovative approaches seems to be more effective than traditional ways. Education of EBP increases its future use and critical thinking and EBP programs improve self-efficacy and the level of evidence utilization.
TL;DR: Comparison of the incidence of falls and their consequences among persons over 65 years of age living in a big urban area, medium-size and small towns, and rural areas shows that fear of falling was most frequently indicated as the reason for the reduced mobility.
Abstract: Background. Nowadays, there are over 300 mln. people aged 65 years or more living in the world. It is estimated that the number will grow to more than 1.5 billion by 2050. The maintenance of physical fitness of the elderly at a level that enables full functional independence for as long as possible should therefore be a priority. Loss of independence leads to long-term medical, social and economic consequences. The problem of falls has only recently been perceived as one of more significant aspects influencing the fitness and independence of individuals over 65. Identifying the scale of the incidence of falls is a prerequisite for initiating prevention activities. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of falls and their consequences (including fractures and the reduction of physical activity) among persons over 65 years of age living in a big urban area, medium-size and small towns, and rural areas. Material and methods. The study enrolled 235 inhabitants of a big city (over 1 mln. inhabitants - Warsaw), 85 inhabitants of medium-size and small towns (20-60 thousand inhabitants) and 112 inhabitants of villages (up to 3 thousand inhabitants). The subjects were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire composed of questions concerning the circumstances of a fall, fracture, fear of another fall and a subjective assessment of mobility before and after a fall. The statistical analysis of the data utilised basic statistical parameters and the following tests: the Mann-Whitney U test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the McNemara test.Results. 77% of the inhabitants of towns/cities had suffered a fall, compared to 89% of the inhabitants of villages. The falls most frequently occurred at home and its vicinity (village) and in the street (town/city). Falls had led to fractures in 35-56% of the subjects, depending on the group.Falls led to a significant reduction in mobility - from moderate to low. According to the subjects, this was due to the fear of another fall, an awareness that one was ill and feeling weak, with pain contributing to a smaller extent. Fear of falling occurred significantly more often in the group which had experienced a fall as compared with those with no history of falls. The fear was mainly connected with walking on flat surfaces, climbing stairs, as well as with bending forwards and being in a bathroom. Conclusions.1. The incidence of falls in the study group was an important problem concerning approx. 81% of the respondents. 2. Fractures, which occurred in about half of subjects, were a dangerous consequence of falls. 3. A fall significantly reduced mobility of the subjects - from moderate to low. 4. The fear of falling was most frequently indicated as the reason for the reduced mobility. Language: en
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: The learning to teach in higher education is universally compatible with any devices to read, so you can get the most less latency time to download any of the authors' books like this one.
Abstract: Thank you for reading learning to teach in higher education. As you may know, people have look numerous times for their favorite books like this learning to teach in higher education, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they cope with some infectious bugs inside their laptop. learning to teach in higher education is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can get it instantly. Our book servers spans in multiple countries, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Kindly say, the learning to teach in higher education is universally compatible with any devices to read.
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this article, Aviles et al. present a review of the state of the art in the field of test data analysis, which includes the following institutions: Stanford University, Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford University and the University of Southern California.
Abstract: EDITORIAL BOARD Robert Davison Aviles, Bradley University Harley E. Baker, California State University–Channel Islands Jean-Guy Blais, Universite de Montreal, Canada Catherine Y. Chang, Georgia State University Robert C. Chope, San Francisco State University Kevin O. Cokley, University of Missouri, Columbia Patricia B. Elmore, Southern Illinois University Shawn Fitzgerald, Kent State University John J. Fremer, Educational Testing Service Vicente Ponsoda Gil, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain Jo-Ida C. Hansen, University of Minnesota Charles C. Healy, University of California at Los Angeles Robin K. Henson, University of North Texas Flaviu Adrian Hodis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Janet K. Holt, Northern Illinois University David A. Jepsen, The University of Iowa Gregory Arief D. Liem, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Wei-Cheng J. Mau, Wichita State University Larry Maucieri, Governors State College Patricia Jo McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Peter F. Merenda, University of Rhode Island Matthew J. Miller, University of Maryland Ralph O. Mueller, University of Hartford Jane E. Myers, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Philip D. Parker, University of Western Sydney Ralph L. Piedmont, Loyola College in Maryland Alex L. Pieterse, University at Albany, SUNY Nicholas J. Ruiz, Winona State University James P. Sampson, Jr., Florida State University William D. Schafer, University of Maryland, College Park William E. Sedlacek, University of Maryland, College Park Marie F. Shoffner, University of Virginia Len Sperry, Florida Atlantic University Kevin Stoltz, University of Mississippi Jody L. Swartz-Kulstad, Seton Hall University Bruce Thompson, Texas A&M University Timothy R. Vansickle, Minnesota Department of Education Steve Vensel, Palm Beach Atlantic University Dan Williamson, Lindsey Wilson College F. Robert Wilson, University of Cincinnati
TL;DR: This book not only helps you read a paper but tries to make you a better paper writer as well and fulfils its advertised aim of being a compressed introduction to the usefulness and potential applications of evidence-based medicine in the clinical setting.
Abstract: Do you need to read published papers? Or are you a scientific paper non-reader or recluse? This book (very thoughtfully) starts off by asking whether you need to read this book—how many textbooks actually ask you whether you need to use/read/buy it? The need for such a book is certainly there, as this excellent little book is intended to help existing readers read, and actually interpret, medical papers better. Current non-readers and scientific recluses may even be encouraged to open medical journals for once! The book provides an excellent practical and pragmatic approach to critical analysis of much of the uninspiring and unread published literature (which often makes you wonder how it got into print in the first place!). There is a systematic discussion on evidence-based medicine and a thoughtful practical section on how to search the medical literature. Despite the age of the Internet and computerised databases, even the most experienced Medline surfer often only manages to find approximately a third of the published material on a particular subject—handy tips are provided to improve searches, to increase one’s gain and to reduce eye strain or repetitive strain injury from a long, tiring session at the Medline computer terminal. The book describes the various sections of a published paper, including appraisal of the nature of the study and statistics for the non-statistician. It then discusses what you would hope to gain from reading a particular paper, including papers that report drug trials, diagnostic screening tests, systematic reviews and guidelines. It also has information on economic analyses and qualitative research. Finally, it gives some examples of how to implement evidence-based findings. Since much of clinical medicine is still not evidence-based, perhaps this goes some way to rectify this appalling state of affairs. I also found the Appendix with a checklist for finding, appraising and implementing evidence fairly helpful. Readers of this excellent book who are like me — struggling to understand much of the published literature and also to produce an intelligible published paper every so often—this book not only helps you read a paper but tries to make you a better paper writer as well. Perhaps my understanding of evidence-based medicine will improve after reading this book, and make me a better teacher and researcher. Perhaps it will make me reject more of the papers submitted to the journal I help edit! At the cost of £14.95, this book is an absolute bargain and it fulfils its advertised aim of being a compressed introduction to the usefulness and potential applications of evidence-based medicine in the clinical setting. I recommend it wholeheartedly as an obligatory read.