Recognizing and reporting child physical abuse: a cross sectional survey of primary health care professionals

Objectives: To assess primary health care professionalsâ?? ability to recognise child physical abuse within their everyday practice. Design: Cross-sectional survey Participants: A stratified random sample of 979 nurses, doctors, and dentists working in primary care in NI. Results: Four hundred and thirty one primary health care professionals responded [44% response rate]. Thirty two per cent were doctors, 35% were dentists and 33% were nurse professionals. The mean age was 41.63 years. Fifty-nine percent (251) stated that they had seen a suspicious case of child physical abuse and 47% (201) said they had reported it. Seventy-two per cent (310) of participants were aware of the mechanisms for reporting child physical abuse. Ability and willingness to recognise and report abuse discriminated the three professions. Conclusions: The findings suggest a professional reluctance to engage in recognising and reporting abuse. Barriers could be reduced by providing training and professional support for the primary care professionals.

The Open Method of Coordination on Health Care After the Lisbon Strategy II: Towards a Neoliberal Framing?

This paper undertakes a content analysis of the discourse on the Open Method of Coordination on Health Care (OMC/HC) in order to show how equity and solidarity are increasingly linked to optimisation and, as such, how neoliberalism increasingly frames health care. Some of the side-effects of this reframing for politics are highlighted: legitimating and extending EU governance, reducing the space for oppositional formations and limited citizenship. The analysis begins by interrogating the broader context of the Lisbon Strategy II, after which the techniques of the OMC/HC and its substantive outputs are analysed.

An exploration of the experience of cancer cachexia: What patients and their families want from health care professionals

The aim of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of patients and family members with regard to care received for cancer cachexia. A qualitative study recruited 27 participants, of which 15 were patients with advanced cancer who had primary cachexia and 12 were family members. Participants were recruited from a regional cancer centre in the UK. All participants took part in a domiciliary interview, which was transcribed verbatim for analysis. A major finding from analysis was ‘lack of response from health care professionals’ in relation to cancer cachexia management. This finding illuminated that patients and their family members wanted three things from healthcare professionals. They wanted their profound weight loss acknowledged, they wanted information about it and why it was happening and they wanted interventions to deal with it. This paper provides powerful messages for healthcare professionals and highlights the needs of patients and their family regarding cancer cachexia management. Patients and their families want this problem addressed by healthcare professionals. This client group requires supportive healthcare interventions, so that they can understand the nature and impact of this syndrome.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.