ABSTRACT
Introduction: Interprofessional education projects with pharmacy and medical students (PS and MS) are rare in Germany (Institut fuer Medizinische und Pharmazeutische Pruefungsfragen, 2019). However, for a future trustful collaboration personal contacts and mutual understanding are vital (Weisenborn et al., 2019). Care by an interprofessional team is beneficial for patients. According to the fifth Action Plan 2021 - 2024 to improve medication safety of the Federal Ministry of Health (2021), interprofessional collaboration is an important key element. Objective(s): The authors developed and implemented an interprofessional education project for PS and MS. The pilot study was conducted to understand the students' perceptions and to evaluate whether students were satisfied with their learning progress and would recommend this project. Method(s): The project, developed by an interprofessional team, consisted of three parts: (1) an interprofessional online seminar, (2) practical training at the Medication Management Center (MMC) and (3) a one-day internship in a general practitioner's (GP's) office. In all three parts, PS and MS performed patient-oriented casework and medication reviews together. The project was evaluated using anonymous pre- and post-questionnaires, containing the German version of the Student Perceptions of Physician-Pharmacist Interprofessional Clinical Education instrument (SPICE-2D) and open-ended questions to further evaluate the students' perceptions (Pudritz et al., 2020). The post-questionnaire asked for feedback as well as a recommendation of this project for other students, using a five-point Likert scale. Furthermore, the students' satisfaction with their learning progress was assessed. Result(s): Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, only the seminar (part 1) was performed in each term. The other parts of the project were implemented progressively. The third execution in the winter term 2021/22 was eventually able to contain all three parts. Through all executions, 105 students (46 PS, 59 MS) attended the interprofessional seminar, 64 (29 PS, 35 MS) the practical training at the MMC and nine joined the internship in a GP's office. For the seminar, 41 of 53 participants were satisfied with their learning progress and 64 of 67 students would recommend it to others. Regarding the practical training at the MMC, 37 of 46 students were satisfied with their learning progress and 45 of 47 would recommend it to others. Finally, the internship in a GP's office was mostly rated positive. Conclusion(s): Despite the pandemic, the interprofessional education project was successfully implemented. The insights gained from the evaluation will be used to adapt the project and its evaluation, eventually. Moreover, the development of further interprofessional education projects will benefit from the gained understanding. The focus of the evaluation of the main study will shift to the students' perceptions towards patient-oriented casework and medication reviews. In addition to the questionnaires, guided individual interviews will be used.
ABSTRACT
When the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, public health measures were implemented globally. Early on, concerns grew that lockdowns and travel restrictions could have severe consequences, especially for marginalized communities in the Global South. In Sub-Saharan Africa, wood charcoal is not only an important cooking fuel, but provides income for many rural households. Despite its economic value, the charcoal sector is, however, largely unregulated and viewed exclusively as an environmentally damaging industry by policy makers and the public who make it responsible for large-scale deforestation. The present study employs a sustainable livelihood framework to assess the ability of charcoal producers in northwestern Kenya, to cope with a short-term shock such as the COVID-19 pandemic and preventive measures. It furthermore compares their access to health information to that of non-producers. A street survey of 139 respondents allowed to gain rapid insights into the realities of a group not accessible via online or telephone surveys. The results show that 87% of charcoal producers face severe decline of this economic practice because of limited market access. These losses cause them food insecurities, while non-charcoal producers are more worried about social consequences of the restrictions. Though charcoal producers and non-producers feel equally well informed about the pandemic, producers are less likely to access reliable information channels than non-producers, resulting in an uneven distribution of health information across the community. By investigating the response of producers to an external shock and limited market access this study adds to the understanding of local vulnerabilities and the sustainability of rural livelihood strategies. This research argues for inclusive policy response to ensure consideration of the informal sector in crisis response as well as to provide adequate and low-threshold access to health information.