Conectar
Iron-folic acid (IFA) supplementation in pregnancy is recommended by the WHO, with a dose of 60 mg of iron in contexts where anaemia remains a severe public health problem. Iron-containing supplements may cause side effects that affect acceptability and adherence in a dose-response manner. Maternal multiple micronutrient supplements (MMS), which include iron and folic acid plus additional micronutrients, are also recommended in the context of rigorous research, and programmes are considering transitioning from IFA to MMS containing 30 mg of iron. We will evaluate the effect of iron dose in MMS on maternal acceptability, side effects, adherence and preferences.
The Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Iron Dose Acceptability Crossover Trial is an individually randomised, quadruple-blind, non-inferiority crossover trial of daily antenatal MMS supplementation formulations that contain 60 mg, 45 mg and 30 mg elemental iron among pregnant women in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A total of 156 pregnant participants will be randomised to a sequence in which they receive each of the three MMS formulations for 1 month. Participants, investigators, outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded to the treatment sequence. The primary trial outcome is participant-reported acceptability of each MMS formulation, measured on a Likert scale. Secondary and tertiary outcomes include preferred and least preferred formulation, identification of MMS formulation, reported side effects and adherence assessed by pill count. Regression analyses will be used to assess differences between formulations and will account for sequence and period effects of the crossover trial design. Qualitative in-depth interviews from a subsample of participants will be conducted to understand women’s perceptions and experiences taking the different MMS formulations.
The trial protocol was approved by Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Ifakara Health Institute IRB, the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences IRB, the National Health Research Ethics Sub-Committee and the Tanzania Medicine and Medical Device Authority. Results will be shared through publications and presentations at the local, regional and international levels.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06069869.
To explore levers and barriers to providing culturally responsive care for general practice nurses (GPNs) using normalization process theory.
A self-administered online cross-sectional survey.
A participatory co-designed adapted version of the normalization of complex interventions measure (NoMAD) validated tool was distributed to a convenience sample of GPNs between December 2022 and February 2023. The sample comprised of GPNs working in general practice services in Ireland (n = 122). Data were analysed using descriptive and analytical statistics (Pearson correlations) and principles of content analysis. This study was conducted and reported in line with the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).
GPNs in this study indicated their familiarity with, acknowledged the importance of and were committed to, providing culturally responsive care. However, implementing culturally responsive care in daily practice was problematic due to insufficient education and training, scarcity of resources and supports and a lack of organizational leadership. Subsequently, GPNs experience difficulties adapting everyday practices to respond appropriately to the care needs of culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) patients.
This analysis highlights the necessity of exploring the intricacies of factors that influence capabilities and capacity for providing culturally responsive care. Despite demonstrating awareness of the importance of providing nursing care that responds to the needs of CaLD patients, GPNs do not have full confidence or capacity to integrate culturally responsive care into their daily work practices.
Using normalization process theory, this study elucidates for the first time how GPNs in Ireland make sense of, legitimize, enact and sustain culturally responsive care as a routine way of working. It illuminates the multitude of micro-level (individual), meso-level (organizational) and macro-level (structural) factors that require attention for normalizing culturally responsive care in general practice services.
The study question was identified in a participatory research prioritization for Irish research about migrant health that involved migrants in the process.
FreshRSS 