ABSTRACT
Research on biofilms is predominantly made in in vitro contexts. However, in vivo observation of biofilms in human chronic infections shows distinct differences compared to in vitro biofilm growth. This could imply the use of an inadequate mental model both in research and healthcare practices. Drawing on knowledge from the cognitive sciences, we hypothesise that the predominance of in vitro research on biofilms is skewed towards a mental model promoting wrong inferences for researchers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the in vivo context. To explore the prevalence of such a mental model, we carried out a qualitative image analysis in which biofilm illustrations from a Google image search were coded for typical in vitro or in vivo characteristics. Further, to investigate potential misinformed and unhelpful clinical interventions related to biofilms, we conducted a quantitative questionnaire among HCPs. The questions were designed to test whether knowledge about in vitro biofilms was used in an in vivo context. This questionnaire was analysed through a chi-squared test. Most biofilm illustrations were consistent with the in vitro model. A statistical analysis of survey responses revealed that HCPs have adequate knowledge about biofilm but often respond incorrectly when asked to apply their knowledge to in vivo contexts. The outcome of this research points to a prevalent and consolidated mental model derived from in vitro observations. This model has likely been made dominant by HCPs' frequent exposure to visual depictions in articles and presentations. The prevalence of the in vitro model sets up the possibility of erroneous claims when the in vitro model is inadequately applied to in vivo contexts. This has potential implications for HCPs working in fields involving biofilm, such as wound care treatment.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Biofilms/drug effects , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Models, Psychological , Pseudomonas aeruginosa/drug effects , Biofilms/growth & development , Humans , Pseudomonas Infections/drug therapy , Pseudomonas Infections/microbiology , Pseudomonas aeruginosa/growth & development , Surveys and Questionnaires , Wound Infection/drug therapy , Wound Infection/microbiologyABSTRACT
Coloplast has conducted a qualitative study among health professionals working in the field of continence care. Interviews with health professionals working in urology and rehabilitation provided insights into the barriers to, and supporters of, adherent behaviour-suggesting ways in which health professionals can work with patients performing intermittent self-catheterisation (ISC) to support better adherence. This includes individualised training that addresses individual fears, ensures correct understanding of the body and the treatment, and eliminates misconceptions. They can also help patients set realistic ambitions, and give them practical advice that will help them adapt ISC to their daily life. Patients need to know how to handle urinary tract infections, how to cope with contradictory instructions from other sources, and how to identify support resources and accurate information. Specific challenges relating to support for urology patients and rehabilitation patients were also highlighted.
