by Emelda E. Chukwu, Dennis Abuh, Ifeoma E. Idigbe, Kazeem A. Osuolale, Vivian Chuka-Ebene, Oluwatoyin Awoderu, Rosemary A. Audu, Folasade T. Ogunsola
BackgroundDespite promising signs of the benefits associated with Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs), there remains limited knowledge on how to implement ASPs in peculiar settings for a more elaborate impact. This study explored prescriber experiences and perceptions of the usefulness, and feasibility of strategies employed for the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions as well as challenges encountered.
MethodsThis is a cross-sectional mixed-method survey of prescribers’ perspective of the facilitators and barriers of implementing ASP. The quantitative approach comprised of a semi-structured questionnaire and data collected were analyzed using SPSS version 26 while the qualitative approach used focus group discussions followed by content analysis.
ResultsOut of the thirty people that participated in the workshop, twenty-five completed the questionnaires which were analyzed. The respondents included 15 (60.0%) medical doctors and 10 (40.0%) pharmacists. The mean age of the respondents was 36.39±7.23 years with mean year of practice of 9.48±6.01 years. Majority of them (84.0%) were in a position to provide input on the implementation of AMS in their facilities, although their managements had the final decision. The pharmacists (100%) were more likely to agree that antibiotic resistance was a problem for their practice than the medical doctors (78.6%) while equal number (80.0%) of respondents (pharmacists and medical doctors) believed that inappropriate prescribing was a problem. Having a specialized and dedicated team with effective monitoring was recognized as crucial for effective ASP while inadequate personnel was identified as a major barrier. We identified stakeholder’s engagement, policies and regulation, as well as education as themes for improving AMS in the country.
ConclusionThe results gave insight into the prescribers’ perspective on the facilitators and barriers to antimicrobial stewardship; challenges and possible solutions to implementing ASPs in health facilities in Lagos State. We further identified pertinent contextual factors that need to be addressed when developing ASPs in healthcare facilities in a resource-poor setting.
by Ronald McDowell, Liam Heaney, Thomas Brown, Brendan Bunting, Hassan Burhan, Rekha Chaudhuri, Paddy Dennison, Shoaib Faruqi, Robin Gore, David J. Jackson, Andrew Menzies-Gow, Thomas Pantin, Mitesh Patel, Paul Pfeffer, Salman Siddiqui, John Busby, on behalf of the UK Severe Asthma Registry
BackgroundThe Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) is used to assess asthma symptom control. The relationship between the questionnaire items and symptom control has not been fully studied in severe asthmatic patients, and its validity for making comparisons between subgroups of patients is unknown.
MethodsData was obtained from patients in the United Kingdom Severe Asthma Registry whose symptom control was assessed using the five-item ACQ (ACQ5) (n = 2,951). Confirmatory factor analysis determined whether a latent factor for asthma symptom control, as measured by the ACQ5, was consistent with the data. Measurement invariance was examined in relation to ethnicity, sex and age; this included testing for approximate measurement invariance using Bayesian Structural Equation Modelling (BSEM). The fitted models were used to estimate the internal consistency reliability of the ACQ5. Invariance of factor means across subgroups was assessed.
ResultsA one-factor construct with residual correlations for the ACQ5 was an excellent fit to the data in all subgroups (Root Mean Square Error Approximation 0.03 [90%CI 0.02,0.05], p-close fit 0.93, Comparative Fit Index 1.00, Tucker Lewis Index 1.00}. Expected item responses were consistent for Caucasian and non-Caucasian patients with the same absolute level of symptom control. There was some evidence that females and younger adults reported wakening more frequently during the night than males and older adults respectively with the same absolute level of symptom control (p Conclusion
The ACQ5 is informative in comparing levels of symptom control between severe asthmatic patients of different ethnicities, sexes and ages. It is important that analyses are replicated in other severe asthma registries to determine whether measurement invariance is observed.
by Mohammad O. Tallouzi, David J. Moore, Nicholas Bucknall, Philip I. Murray, Melanie J. Calvert, Alastair K. Denniston, Jonathan Mathers
BackgroundUveitis comprises a range of conditions that result in intraocular inflammation. Most sight-threatening uveitis falls into the broad category known as Non-infectious Posterior Segment-Involving Uveitis (PSIU). To evaluate treatments, trialists and clinicians must select outcome measures. The aim of this study was to understand healthcare professionals’ perspectives on what outcomes are important to adult patients with PSIU and their carers.
MethodsTwelve semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings were compared with the views of patients and carers and outcomes abstracted from a previously published systematic review.
ResultsEleven core domains were identified as important to healthcare professionals: (1) visual function, (2) symptoms, (3) functional ability, (4) impact on relationships, (5) financial impact, (6) psychological morbidity and emotional well-being (7) psychosocial adjustment to uveitis, (8) doctor / patient / interprofessional relationships and access to health care, (9) treatment burden, (10) treatment side effects, (11) disease control. Healthcare professionals recognised a similar range of domains to patients and carers but placed more emphasis on certain outcomes, particularly in the disease control domain. In contrast the range of outcomes identified via the systematic review was limited.
ConclusionHealthcare professionals recognise all of the published outcome domains as patients/carers in the previous publication but with subtly differing emphasis within some domains and with a priority for certain types of measures. Healthcare professionals discussed the disease control and side effects/complications to a greater degree than patients and carers in the focus groups