ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Cultural competence is instrumental in reducing health equities. Addressing cultural competence at higher education level in healthcare students lays a solid cultural competence foundation for professional practice. The use of vignettes as a teaching intervention was effective because it allowed the use of role-modelling in real-life situations.The study aimed to enhance cultural competence in undergraduate pharmacy students using a self-directed online interactive cultural competence module embedded with three vignettes (case scenarios). METHOD: This study was an exploratory longitudinal mixed method (survey and written feedback) study and used a convenience sample of 90 pharmacy students at an Australian University. Students' self-perceived transcultural self-efficacy was evaluated pre- and post-intervention using Jeffreys' Transcultural Self-Efficacy Tool (TSET) which is a validated outcome measure. KEY FINDINGS: Vignettes were effective in teaching cultural competence as shown by significant (P < 0.0005) changes pre- to post-intervention in cognitive, practical and affective domains scores using TSET. The affective domain had the least positive mean score change. There was no significant association between any of the demographic factors such as age, gender or birthplace/parents' birthplace and changes in any of the three domains. Cronbach's alpha of >0.90 in all domains confirmed the test's internal consistency and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The findings were indicative of the students' positive receptivity to learning cultural competence and that they had a well-developed understanding of cultural competence. Further research is needed to determine why most cultural competence teaching methods produce little or no meaningful change in enhancing the affective domain.
Subject(s)
Students, Pharmacy , Transcultural Nursing , Humans , Cultural Competency/education , Transcultural Nursing/education , Reproducibility of Results , Australia , TeachingABSTRACT
Culturally and linguistically diverse populations, particularly asylum seekers, face challenges in accessing healthcare services. Pharmacists need to be capable of identifying and responding appropriately to the needs of diverse population groups. The aims of this study were to clarify student pharmacists': knowledge of, and attitudes to, asylum seekers; their understanding of themselves with regard to cultural competence; their exposure to culturally and linguistically diverse clinical settings; their potential receptivity to learning opportunities directed towards cultural competence; and the extent to which they interpreted the current curriculum as improving their cultural competence. Pharmacy students' viewpoints and perspectives were essential as emerging pharmacy professionals. This study employed mixed methods and convenience sampling. There were no significant (p > 0.05) associations between demographics and any of the survey items. Five themes emerged from the interviews: namely, exposure, formal vs. informal, positive views, conflict, and sufficiency. Pharmacy curriculum should ideally provide sufficient knowledge to meet culturally diverse healthcare consumers' needs, especially asylum seekers. The most efficacious models for teaching cultural competence are as yet still undetermined. Interactive learning in cultural competence was recommended as essential.
ABSTRACT
Asylum seekers are susceptible to chronic non-communicable diseases pre- and post-arrival due to poor living conditions, unhealthy lifestyles and restrictive and poor access to health services. Despite their need for constant and continuous health care access due to poor health, they face healthcare services access restrictions dependent on their visa conditions in Australia. Some visas only allow access to hospital services with restrictions on primary health services access such as GPs and free or discounted pharmaceutical products. In comparison, disadvantaged host populations have access to free/discounted pharmaceutical products and unrestricted access to primary and secondary health care. Ten professionals who constantly engage with asylum seekers in three large asylum seeker centres in Melbourne were interviewed either face-to-face or over the phone. The interviews were essential to understand how health inequities may be addressed for asylum seekers. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis framework. Their recommendations, based mainly on their experience and evaluation of programs, were: (1) cultural competence training; (2) use of interpreters; (3) free access to health services and medications; (4) use of English learning to promote health literacy and community integration; (5) robust chronic non-communicable diseases screening; and (6) health promotion and accessible food programs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
ABOUT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis refers to a group of conditions that cause inflammation and damage of the joints, starting in children and young people aged < 16 years. Treatments include anti-inflammatory medicines, disease-modifying/biologic medicines and corticosteroids. Young people often require corticosteroids at the start of their treatment, or in a flare with worsening inflammation, to get their juvenile idiopathic arthritis under control. A short course of corticosteroids can help and can be given by injection into the joint, through a drip into a vein, by injection into the muscle or in the form of tablets or liquid to be taken orally. Although they have been used for decades, there is no research to show the best way(s) of giving corticosteroids. STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to (1) agree on what corticosteroid treatments to compare in a treatment trial and the best way to measure changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis to evaluate a quick-acting treatment and (2) find out if there are enough young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK to be included in such a study. METHODS: Published research on corticosteroids in juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reviewed. Health-care professionals were asked how they choose which corticosteroids to use and which method of administration to use. Interviews were carried out with children and young people and their families to (1) consider the design of a study comparing corticosteroid routes, (2) identify outcomes important to them and (3) determine whether or not they would be willing to take part in a future study. A 3-month feasibility study was carried out to collect details of children and young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis before and after corticosteroid treatment to measure improvements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis activity, and to see whether or not a larger study would be possible. FINDINGS: This study showed that corticosteroids are used in different ways across the UK. The views of children, young people and their families must be taken into account when designing a future study. This study calculated the number of young people who would be needed to take part in the future, showing that it would be possible to do a larger study that compared different corticosteroid treatments, which would help everyone to understand the best way to use corticosteroids.
