...
首页> 外文期刊>Implementation Science >The impact of leadership hubs on the uptake of evidence-informed nursing practices and workplace policies for HIV care: a quasi-experimental study in Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa
【24h】

The impact of leadership hubs on the uptake of evidence-informed nursing practices and workplace policies for HIV care: a quasi-experimental study in Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa

机译:领导枢纽对艾滋病毒护理的证据通知护理实践和工作场所政策的影响:牙买加,肯尼亚,乌干达和南非的准实验研究

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The enormous impact of HIV on communities and health services in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean has especially affected nurses, who comprise the largest proportion of the health workforce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Strengthening action-based leadership for and by nurses is a means to improve the uptake of evidence-informed practices for HIV care. A prospective quasi-experimental study in Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa examined the impact of establishing multi-stakeholder leadership hubs on evidence-informed HIV care practices. Hub members were engaged through a participatory action research (PAR) approach. Three intervention districts were purposefully selected in each country, and three control districts were chosen in Jamaica, Kenya and Uganda. WHO level 3, 4 and 5 health care institutions and their employed nurses were randomly sampled. Self-administered, validated instruments measured clinical practices (reports of self and peers), quality assurance, work place policies and stigma at baseline and follow-up. Standardised average scores ranging from 0 to 1 were computed for clinical practices, quality assurance and work place policies. Stigma scores were summarised as 0 (no reports) versus 1 (one or more reports). Pre-post differences in outcomes between intervention and control groups were compared using the Mantel Haenszel chi-square for dichotomised stigma scores, and independent t tests for other measures. For South Africa, which had no control group, pre-post differences were compared using a Pearson chi-square and independent t test. Multivariate analysis was completed for Jamaica and Kenya. Hub members in all countries self-assessed changes in their capacity at follow-up; these were examined using a paired t test. Response rates among health care institutions were 90.2 and 80.4?% at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Results were mixed. There were small but statistically significant pre-post, intervention versus control district improvements in workplace policies and quality assurance in Jamaica, but these were primarily due to a decline in scores in the control group. There were modest improvements in clinical practices, workplace policies and quality assurance in South Africa (pre-post) (clinical practices of self-pre 0.67 (95?% CI, 0.62, 0.72) versus post 0.78 (95?% CI, 0.73-0.82), p?=?0.002; workplace policies-pre 0.82 (95?% CI, 0.70, 0.85) versus post 0.87 (95?% CI, 0.84, 0.90), p?=?0.001; quality assurance-pre 0.72 (95?% CI, 0.67, 0.77) versus post 0.84 (95?% CI, 0.80, 0.88)). There were statistically significant improvements in scores for nurses stigmatising patients (Jamaica reports of not stigmatising-pre-post intervention 33.9 versus 62.4?%, pre-post control 54.7 versus 64.4?%, p?=?0.002-and Kenya pre-post intervention 35 versus 51.6?%, pre-post control 34.2 versus 47.8?%, p?=?0.006) and for nurses being stigmatised (Kenya reports of no stigmatisation-pre-post intervention 23 versus 37.3?%, pre-post control 15.4 versus 27?%, p?=?0.004). Multivariate results for Kenya and Jamaica were non-significant. Twelve hubs were established; 11 were active at follow-up. Hub members (n?=?34) reported significant improvements in their capacity to address care gaps. Leadership hubs, comprising nurses and other stakeholders committed to change and provided with capacity building can collectively identify issues and act on strategies that may improve practice and policy. Overall, hubs did not provide the necessary force to improve the uptake of evidence-informed HIV care in their districts. If hubs are to succeed, they must be integrated within district health authorities and become part of formal, legal organisations that can regularise and sustain them.
机译:艾滋病毒对撒哈拉以南非洲和加勒比地区的社区和卫生服务的巨大影响尤其受到影响的护士,包括低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)的卫生劳动力最大比例。加强护士和护士的行动领导是一种改善对艾滋病毒护理的证据的采伐的手段。在牙买加,肯尼亚,乌干达和南非展望了对准氨实验研究审查了建立多利益攸关方领导枢纽对知情人士的艾滋病毒护理措施的影响。枢纽成员通过参与式行动研究(PAR)方法进行订婚。在每个国家都有三个干预区,在牙买加,肯尼亚和乌干达中选择了三个控制区。谁3,4和5级医疗机构及其所雇用的护士被随机抽样。自我管理的验证仪器测量了临床实践(对自我和同行的报告),质量保证,工作地点政策和耻辱,并在基线和后续行动。标准化平均分数范围为0到1,用于临床实践,质量保证和工作地点。耻辱分数总结为0(无报告)与1(一个或多个报告)。使用Mantel Haenszel Chi-Square进行干预和对照组之间的后果差异,用于二分法的耻骨分数,以及用于其他措施的独立T测试。对于没有对照组的南非,使用Pearson Chi-Square和独立的T测试进行比较前的后差异。为牙买加和肯尼亚完成了多变量分析。所有国家的集会成员都在随访中自我评估的变化;使用配对T测试检查这些。在基线和后续行动中,医疗机构之间的反应率分别为90.2和80.4?%。结果混合了。在牙买加工作场所政策和质量保证的职位上有很小但统计上显着的篇,干预与控制区的改进,但这些主要是由于对照组的得分下降。临床实践,南非工作场所政策和质量保证有适度的改善(篇名)(自我前0.67(95〜%CI,0.62,0.72)与0.78(95〜%CI,0.73- 0.82),p?= 0.002;工作场所策略 - 前0.82(95〜%CI,0.70,0.85)与柱0.87(95〜%CI,0.84,0.90),p?= 0.001;质量保证 - 预示0.72( 95?%CI,0.67,0.77)与柱0.84(95〜%CI,0.80,0.88))。护士的评分有统计学意义改善患者的评分(牙买加报告没有侮辱 - 前干预后33.9与62.4倍,预防前的控制前54.7与64.4?%,p?= 0.002-and Kenya Pher Preast介入35与51.6?%,后控制前34.2与47.8?%,p?= 0.006)和护士侮辱(肯尼亚报告没有耻辱的介入干预23与37.3倍,后控制前控制前15.4次27?%,p?= 0.004)。肯尼亚和牙买加的多变量结果是非重要的。十二位集线器建立; 11在随访中活跃。枢纽成员(N?=?34)报告了他们解决关心差距的能力的重大改善。领导中心包括护士和其他利益攸关方致力于改变和提供能力建设,可以集体识别可能改善实践和政策的战略行为。总体而言,集线器没有提供必要的力量,以改善他们所在地区的证据通知的艾滋病毒疗养的吸收。如果集线器要成功,他们必须纳入地区卫生当局,成为可以规范和维持的正式法律组织的一部分。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号