WORLD leaders have negotiated and agreed on an ambitious plan to end poverty and inequality in the next 15 years, adopting 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) at the United Nations (UN) as a road map to tackle the world’s most troubling problems. More than 150 world leaders were scheduled to attend the three-day summit that ended on Sunday to formally adopt an ambitious new sustainable development agenda, said the UN. The summit was held ahead of the UN General Assembly this week…..more

The much-hyped Sustainable Development Goals to be adopted by the UN summit starting this week in New York will not deliver the new economy that the world so desperately needs. Their creators want to reduce poverty and inequality without touching the wealth and power of the global 1%. They fail to understand a basic fact: Mass poverty is the product of extreme wealth accumulation and over-consumption by a few…..more

WHOs PHC Performance Initiative: Effective primary health care is essential to strong health systems. Countries with high-performing primary health care achieve better health outcomes, more equitably and at lower cost compared to peers that over emphasize hospital and specialty care. On 26 September 2015, WHO, the World Bank Group and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation launch the Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI). This initiative will assist low- and middle-income countries in improving primary health care through better measurement and knowledge-sharing. PHCPI helps countries identify which parts of their health system are working well and which ones need improvement in order to drive advancements and enhance accountability….more

What is Quality (Improvement) in Primary Care? Where to start?

Keep Calm: EQuiP introduces the Back to Basics Training Package!

Find the package of free resources in the right column box here:

http://equip.ch/flx/back_to_basics_of_quality/

BACKGROUND

#EQuiP believes there is a need for continuous and permanent information and training about Quality (Improvement) in Primary Care. We noticed in the EQuiP Working Group on #Teaching #Quality that knowledge of basic principles was lacking in a lot of training institutes over Europe.

However, many young GPs, who sometimes attend EQuiP conferences, are very interested in this topic:

– What is Quality (Improvement) really about?

– How do you bring it into general practice in a feasible way?

This was a call to action for EQuiP:

– How could we, as a network for quality improvement and patient safety, lower the threshold for GPs to use Quality Improvement techniques in daily work?

– How could we reach Primary Care workers, promote individual training materials and train the trainers to maintain the highest level of quality possible?

PROCESS & PRODUCT

The EQuiP Executive Board presented in Fishingen in Switzerland to the entire EQuiP Network a plan to start a Back to Basics Training Package for interested GPs and Primary Care workers. Thus, we will bring together online information and training possibilities on the EQuiP website.

In line with the Quality Framework, developed by EQuiP and partners in the EU Leonardo da Vinci project, we will offer workshops and training sessions in core competences at every open EQuiP and Wonca Europe conference.

In the EQuiP Conference in Fishingen in April 2015, we started off with a succesfull workshop on PDCA for Dummies. In an interactive way every participant was asked to try to develop his/her own small project plan, and we learned a lot from each other on how to realize this successfully.

At the Wonca Europe Conference in Istanbul, we are having a workshop on: Quality in my practice. How do I start?

And at the EQuiP Spring Conference in Prague in April 2016 about patient safety, we will have a session on dealing with mistakes and critical incidents.

You are very welcome to come and participate in one of these workshops.

The Millennial generation, loosely defined as those born between 1982 and 1994, has been getting increasing attention in the workforce. This makes sense, as they are increasingly taking leadership roles in organizations as older employees retire. In fact, a recent survey by PwC found that by the year 2020, millennials will be 50 percent of the workforce….more

Abstract

Which goals are key for businesses? What sectors do they address? Will they make any difference? We read all the 169 SDG targets so you don’t have to ….more

Full Text: PDF

ADD COMMENT

Around the world, millions of women lack access to contraception and family planning. Getting family planning supplies, including contraceptives, into the hands of those who need them the most helps improve the health of women and families. World Contraception Day is an effort to bring global attention to the importance of ensuring women and couples have access to the products and services they need. A recently updated series of Impact Briefs, Saving and Improving Lives through Increased Access to Contraceptives, prepared for USAID by the USAID | DELIVER PROJECT, examines health improvements related to supply chains for family planning programs in twenty countries in Africa and Asia.

Download the briefs at http://bit.ly/1KzDCEA

Anne Marie Hvid, PMP

Knowledge Management Advisor USAID | DELIVER PROJECT

deliver.jsi.com

To some extent, Americans have an advantage over much of the world’s population: The country’s two most widely spoken languages — English and Spanish — are among the most widely spoken worldwide. So, are Americans still willing to take language classes? The number of American students who learned a language other than English decreased by about 100,000 between 2009 and 2013, according to research by the Modern Language Association. For many, taking a class in economics might seem more beneficial than a French course. But is it really? ….more

Although qualitative content analysis is commonly used in nursing science research, the trustworthiness of its use has not yet been systematically evaluated. There is an ongoing demand for effective and straightforward strategies for evaluating content analysis studies. A more focused discussion about the quality of qualitative content analysis findings is also needed, particularly as several articles have been published on the validity and reliability of quantitative content analysis (Neuendorf, 2011; Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999; Rourke & Anderson, 2004) than qualitative content analysis. Whereas many standardized procedures are available for performing quantitative content analysis (Baxter, 2009), this is not the case for qualitative content analysis.

Qualitative content analysis is one of the several qualitative methods currently available for analyzing data and interpreting its meaning (Schreier, 2012). As a research method, it represents a systematic and objective means of describing and quantifying phenomena (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Schreier, 2012). A prerequisite for successful content analysis is that data can be reduced to concepts that describe the research phenomenon (Cavanagh, 1997; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) by creating categories, concepts, a model, conceptual system, or conceptual map (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Morgan, 1993; Weber, 1990). The research question specifies what to analyze and what to create (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Schreier, 2012). In qualitative content analysis, the abstraction process is the stage during which concepts are created. Usually, some aspects of the process can be readily described, but it also partially depends on the researcher’s insight or intuitive action, which may be very difficult to describe to others (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). From the perspective of validity, it is important to report how the results were created. Readers should be able to clearly follow the analysis and resulting conclusions (Schreier, 2012).

Qualitative content analysis can be used in either an inductive or a deductive way. Both inductive and deductive content analysis processes involve three main phases: preparation, organization, and reporting of results. The preparation phase consists of collecting suitable data for content analysis, making sense of the data, and selecting the unit of analysis. In the inductive approach, the organization phase includes open coding, creating categories, and abstraction (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In deductive content analysis, the organization phase involves categorization matrix development, whereby all the data are reviewed for content and coded for correspondence to or exemplification of the identified categories (Polit & Beck, 2012). The categorization matrix can be regarded as valid if the categories adequately represent the concepts, and from the viewpoint of validity, the categorization matrix accurately captures what was intended (Schreier, 2012). In the reporting phase, results are described by the content of the categories describing the phenomenon using a selected approach (either deductive or inductive).

There has been much debate about the most appropriate terms (rigor, validity, reliability, trustworthiness) for assessing qualitative research validity (Koch & Harrington, 1998). Criteria for reliability and validity are used in both quantitative and qualitative studies when assessing the credibility (Emden & Sandelowski, 1999; Koch & Harrington, 1998; Ryan-Nicholls & Will, 2009). Such terms are mainly rooted in a positivist conception of research. According to Schreier (2012), there is no clear dividing line between qualitative and quantitative content analysis, and similar terms and criteria for reliability and validity are often used. Researchers have mainly used qualitative criteria when evaluating aspects of validity in content analysis (Kyngäs et al., 2011). The most widely used criteria for evaluating qualitative content analysis are those developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). They used the term trustworthiness. The aim of trustworthiness in a qualitative inquiry is to support the argument that the inquiry’s findings are “worth paying attention to” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This is especially important when using inductive content analysis as categories are created from the raw data without a theory-based categorization matrix. Thus, we decided to use such traditional qualitative research terms when identifying factors affecting the trustworthiness of data collection, analysis, and presentation of the results of content analysis.

Several other trustworthiness evaluation criteria have been proposed for qualitative studies (Emden, Hancock, Schubert, & Darbyshire, 2001; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Neuendorf, 2002;Polit & Beck, 2012; Schreier, 2012). However, a common feature of these criteria is that they aspire to support the trustworthiness by reporting the process of content analysis accurately.Lincoln and Guba (1985) have proposed four alternatives for assessing the trustworthiness of qualitative research, that is, credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability. In 1994, the authors added a fifth criterion referred to as authenticity. From the perspective of establishing credibility, researchers must ensure that those participating in research are identified and described accurately. Dependability refers to the stability of data over time and under different conditions. Conformability refers to the objectivity, that is, the potential for congruence between two or more independent people about the data’s accuracy, relevance, or meaning. Transferability refers to the potential for extrapolation. It relies on the reasoning that findings can be generalized or transferred to other settings or groups. The last criterion, authenticity, refers to the extent to which researchers, fairly and faithfully, show a range of realities (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Polit & Beck, 2012)

Researchers often struggle with problems that compromise the trustworthiness of qualitative research findings (de Casterlé, Gastmans, Bryon, & Denier, 2012). The aim of the study described in this article was to describe trustworthiness based on the main qualitative content analysis phases, and to compile a checklist for evaluating trustworthiness of content analysis study. The primary research question was, “What is essential for researchers attempting to improve the trustworthiness of a content analysis study in each phase?” The knowledge presented was identified from a narrative literature review of earlier studies, our own experiences, and methodological textbooks. A combined search of Medline (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) was conducted, using the following key words: trustworthiness, rigor OR validity, AND qualitative content analysis. The following were used as inclusion criteria: methodological articles focused on qualitative content analysis in the area of health sciences published in English and with no restrictions on year. The search identified 12 methodological content analysis articles from databases and reference list checks (Cavanagh, 1997; Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Guthrie, Yongvanich, & Ricceri, 2004; Harwood & Garry, 2003; Holdford, 2008; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Morgan, 1993; Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999; Rourke & Anderson, 2004; Vaismoradi, Bondas, & Turunen, 2013). The reference list of selected papers was also checked, and qualitative research methodology textbooks were used when writing the synthesis of the review. The discussion in this article helps to clarify how content analysis should be reported in a valid and understandable manner, which, we expect, will be of particular benefit to reviewers of scientific articles.

More

Understand the principles of electrocardiography and learn a step-by-step approach to the ECG test, with this free online course….more

A new survey from L’Oreal looks at the public’s perception of female scientists with shocking results.  If you ask a kid to draw a scientist, they will draw a “mad scientist” with sticking up hair in a white lab coat, probably holding a test tube containing some evil-looking smoking liquid: an amalgam of Einstein and Frankenstein. Oh yes, and they’ll be male. Based on new research, this stereotype isn’t going anywhere. The L’Oreal Foundation have just published the results of a survey they carried out across Europe, asking around 5000 people their views and perceptions of scientists. The answers shocked me….more

‘Traditional medicines couldn’t stop the deadly virus from killing 50 people – a third of the population – in Kumala, ManMansaray’s small village in the north. “I used to believe that Ebola was something that can be cured by our herbalists here,” said Mansaray, 50, a farmer. “But when I saw what Ebola did in Kumala village … I changed my thought all together.” He said the victims included one of the herbalists and his wife, a secret society chief.

‘Secret societies that preserve ancient African traditions have been a pillar of Sierra Leone’s culture, but are losing credibility because doctors have convinced people like Mansaray that modern medicine, not ancient rites, will conquer Ebola.

‘The shift is a one example of how the Ebola has changed Sierra Leone, which continues to record new cases – five in the week through Sept. 13, according to the World Health Organization…

‘People don’t shake hands, they avoid large gatherings, refrain from sex if a partner might have come in contact with the virus and obsessively wash their hands at public sanitation stations as part of a national campaign to fight Ebola.

‘Abandoning traditional African beliefs about healing methods could be the most radical social shift wrought by the virus.’

Read full text online:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/09/19/after-ebola-africans-shun-herbal-medicines/72415924/

—

Let’s build a future where people are no longer dying for lack of healthcare knowledge – Join HIFA: www.hifa2015.org