Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Hu Li Tsa Chih - Journal of Nursing ; 70(1):6-8, 2023.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2203032

ABSTRACT

While everyday prejudice and stereotypes may seem harmless, they can cause problems for interpersonal interactions and have drastic consequences for professional caregivers. American sociologist Goffman (1963) defined "stigma" as an individual being disqualified from complete social acceptance. Stigmatization and social stigma convey long-discounted stereotypes and social discrimination in specific ways, resulting in an individual being psychologically categorized as unwelcome or an outcast and, in turn, notable differences between their virtual and actual social identity. Link and Phelan (2001) defined stigmatization as the simultaneous occurrence of four processes: (1) distinct labeling;(2) stereotyping labels with unwelcome attributes;(3) separating "us" from "them" by framing labeled individuals as different;and (4) discriminating against labeled individuals. Evidently, stigmatization is a complex and multifaceted social process that comprises labeling, stereotyping, separating, depriving (of status), and discriminating through the exercise of power (Link & Phelan, 2001). Stigmatized individuals often perceive themselves as different from and devalued by others (Jacoby et al., 2005). Stigmatizing others may provide individuals with a higher perceived locus of control, stronger self-esteem, and reduced anxiety (Heatherton et al., 2000). Stigmatization significantly impacts the physical and mental health of victims. For example, it can make patients stressed, prolong the length of their hospitalization, and increase their likelihood of receiving a depression diagnosis (Budhwani & De, 2019). The main causes of social stigmatization are ignorance, lack of understanding, misinformation, and misunderstanding (Kok et al., 2018). The research has demonstrated that healthcare professionals may stigmatize and discriminate against the patients for which they are caring, hurting the dignity of their patients (Alenezi, 2022) and leading to a lack of trust in patient-physician relationships, reducing patients' opportunities to receive adequate care (Tyerman et al., 2021), hindering their treatment and recovery, and resulting in lower-quality healthcare and prognoses (Copeland, 2021). Therefore, reducing stigmatization in healthcare institutions is necessary to improve healthcare services and boost trust between patients and healthcare teams. During the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline healthcare workers stigmatized and discriminated against many patients during their process of care, harming the mental health of these patients (Tsukuda et al., 2022). These pandemic-era experiences highlight the need for healthcare workers to reflect empathetically on their behavior from various perspectives. Given that empathy and attitude are linked to each other, Economou et al. (2020) argued that anti-stigmatization efforts should prioritize and strengthen healthcare workers' perspective-taking abilities. The nursing-development process should focus on reestablishing behavioral and professional norms to eliminate labeling, instill empathy, emphasize relationships, and develop moral maturity to mitigate stigmatization among patients (Copeland, 2021). The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, created The Lancet Commission to end stigma and discrimination in mental health with the assistance of over 50 renowned healthcare experts. Strategies for countering stigmatization include the incorporation of relevant training programs and educational interventions aimed at improving how students understand disease and reducing discriminatory behavior against patients. The healthcare sector must focus on the impacts of stigmatization on both healthcare providers' behaviors and treatment quality rather than merely assessing the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers (Thornicroft et al., 2022). This approach can help ensure patients receive high-quality healthcare that promotes their recovery, is tailored to their needs, and is free from discrimination and stigmatization.

2.
International Journal of Information and Management Sciences ; 32(3):261-276, 2021.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1737325

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic broke out in December 2019 and began to spread globally in 2020. The final analysis of 124, 564 valid observations pointed out that before and after the COVID-19, online education courses had an abso-lute increase in the total purchase amount or total purchase amount. Because of the control of COVID-19 in Taiwan, there is no significant difference between the validity and the time point of the purchase amount and the use of the course. The geographic location is defined by the digital development level of the administrative area, and the higher the digital development of the administrative area, the better the amount of courses purchased and the use of courses, compared with other types of courses, the life category has more purchase amount and course use time;the education level of course users has a considerable degree of positive influence on the purchase amount and course using. © 2021, Tamkang University. All rights reserved.

3.
Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science ; 62(8), 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1378706

ABSTRACT

Purpose : No-show appointments may be associated with significant detriments to patient outcome, practice efficiency, and practice financial status. The purpose of this study is to investigate reasons patients failed to attend scheduled appointments at an outpatient ophthalmology clinic at an academic medical center. Methods : The study protocol was reviewed and deemed exempt from further review by the Penn State College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. A scheduling software was used to identify all adult patients who did not attend their scheduled ophthalmology clinic appointments at Penn State Eye Center from 11/9/20 to 12/16/20. Potential subjects were contacted by phone to conduct a brief phone interview. Subjects willing to participate were asked to specify the reason(s) they did not attend their appointment, and to suggest interventions that would help them attend. Descriptive statistical methods were used to describe the reasons for missed appointments and suggested interventions. Results : Of the 325 patients identified, 160 (49.2%) were reached by telephone and participated in the phone survey. The most common reason for non-attendance reported was forgetting the appointment (35.6%), followed by being unaware of appointment (20.6%), scheduling conflict (13.1%), and illness (11.9%). Eighteen patients (11.3%) reported transportation difficulty and two patients (1.3%) reported financial burden. Six patients (3.8%) reported concern for the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for non-attendance. Fifty-seven patients suggested potential interventions that would help them attend their visits, with the most common being the provision of a reminder (49.1%), followed by providing aid with transportation (15.8%) and sending multiple modalities of reminders (14.0%). Conclusions : In this study conducted at an outpatient ophthalmology clinic at an academic center, the most common reasons for non-attendance were patients forgetting about the appointment and being unaware of the appointment. This finding is supported by the interventions suggested by the patients, which consisted primarily of providing appointment reminders. Patients also noted difficulty with transportation and suggested assistance with transportation to the clinic. These findings may facilitate the development and implementation of specific interventions to decrease the patient no-show rate.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL