Mục tiêu: Đánh giá kiến thức, thái độ đối với người cao tuổi và một số yếu tố liên quan ở sinh viên điều dưỡng Trường Đại học Đại Nam. Đối tượng và phương pháp nghiên cứu: Nghiên cứu mô tả cắt ngang trên 252 sinh viên điều dưỡng từ năm thứ nhất đến năm thứ tư. Dữ liệu thu thập bằng bảng hỏi tự điền trực tuyến, sử dụng thang đo kiến thức FAQ (2015) đã điều chỉnh và thang đo thái độ KAOP. Phân tích số liệu bằng thống kê mô tả và kiểm định χ² với p<0,05. Kết quả: 28,2% sinh viên có kiến thức đạt về người cao tuổi; 71,8% chưa đạt. 96% sinh viên có thái độ tích cực. Mong muốn làm việc trong lĩnh vực chăm sóc người cao tuổi sau tốt nghiệp liên quan có ý nghĩa đến kiến thức và thái độ. Kết luận: Kiến thức về người cao tuổi của sinh viên điều dưỡng còn hạn chế, dù thái độ nhìn chung tích cực. Cần tăng cường nội dung lão khoa và trải nghiệm thực hành chăm sóc người cao tuổi trong chương trình đào tạo.

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. The sudden transition to blended teaching and learning (BTL) poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health science programs that require hands-on practical experience. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these self-report questionnaires (SRQs) should be established to ensure the accuracy of the results as intended by the SRQ.

This study critically appraised, compared, and summarized the psychometric properties of SRQ evaluating BTL among health science university students. This review determined the SRQ’s reliability, internal consistency, various forms of validity (content, criterion, construct), and responsiveness.

Following a 10-step procedure based on COSMIN guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of SRQs used by health science university students to evaluate blended teaching and learning. Studies were eligible if they reported psychometric properties of SRQs related to blended learning among university health science students; exclusions included studies focusing on perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, as well as articles such as biographies, editorials, and conference materials. Searches covered multiple electronic databases until April 26, 2023, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST, ERIC, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Acta Medica Philippina, Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development, and HERDIN, managed through Zotero. Two independent reviewers performed database searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text evaluations, with a third reviewer resolving any disputes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist was employed to evaluate included studies on the development and various measurement properties of SRQs. The reviewers assessed SRQ standards, including validity, reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability, and feasibility. Data extraction and result tabulation were independently completed, with content comparison by two health education experts. This evaluation categorized the SRQs into three quality and validity levels.

The study examined five articles; four were rated as 'doubtful' and one as 'inadequate' in the overall development of SRQ. All four 'doubtful' studies demonstrated questionable content validity when university students were asked about the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Only half of these studies achieved an 'adequate' rating for content validity based on expert opinions on relevance and comprehensiveness. All but one study scored from 'very good' to 'adequate' in structural validity. Three out of the four studies scored a very good rating for internal consistency, while one was deemed 'inadequate' in internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, and reliability. Three out of four studies scored 'very good' on construct validity, but all overlooked criterion validity and responsiveness. Conducted in various locations, including Australia, Romania, Turkey, and Taiwan, these studies highlighted both common characteristics and limitations in questionnaire development according to the COSMIN guidelines. Four studies were deemed reliable and valid for BTL constructs (Category A); Wu et al. requires further validation (Category B). Study limitations included heterogeneity in populations, settings, and questionnaire versions, potential subjective bias in SRQ content comparison, and the evolving nature of SRQs in blended learning contexts.

The systematic review reports the development and evaluation of SRQs for BTL while identifying gaps in their applicability to health science programs. The Blended Learning Scale (BLS) of Lazar et al. and the Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) of Ballouk et al. showed an ‘adequate' rating for content validity. BLS revealed very good structural validity, internal consistency, and adequate content validation. Although the BLQ lacked Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it yielded valuable constructs for evaluating health sciences students' experiences in BTL. Both tools require improvements on recall period, completion time, interpretability, and feasibility. The review underscores the necessity for cont inuous assessment and enhancement of such instruments in BTL, advocating a rigorous scale development process. Furthermore, it encourages the customization of teaching and learning evaluation tools to suit specific institutional contexts while promoting further validation of these questionnaires across different populations in future research.

INTRODUCTION: A successful vaccination programme forms the cornerstone of controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The unprecedented speed of COVID-19 vaccine development and lack of long-term data have raised fears regarding its safety and efficacy. Vaccine hesitancy can undermine the uptake, and hence success of the vaccination programme. Given the high complication rates of COVID-19 infections in kidney transplant recipients, it is particularly important to identify and address vaccine hesitancy in this population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among kidney transplant recipients attending transplant clinic between 5 April and 5 May 2021. The survey assessed attitudes towards COVID-19, willingness/hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, vaccination concerns and prompts to vaccination. This was scored on a Likert scale with scores ranging from 'strongly disagree' - 1 point to 'strongly agree' - 5 points. RESULTS: One hundred and one completed responses were captured. Of these, 86% respondents reported to agree or strongly agree to vaccination. This was despite significant concerns of allograft rejection (mean score 4.12, standard deviation [SD] 0.97) and decreased immunosuppressant efficacy (mean score 4.14, SD 0.96) with vaccination. Multivariable model showed a positive association with transplant vintage of ≥ 5 years (median 2.41), lower educational levels of secondary school or less (median 5.82) and healthcare provider advocacy (median 1.88) in predicting vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS Vaccine acceptance rate was high among kidney transplant recipients. Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern in those with a transplant vintage of less than 5 years and those with tertiary educational level. Healthcare provider advocacy is important in improving vaccine acceptance rates.
Humans ; Kidney Transplantation ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Male ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; COVID-19 Vaccines ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Transplant Recipients/psychology* ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data* ; Vaccination Hesitancy/psychology* ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vaccination/psychology* ; Aged ; SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND: Effective interventions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic require an understanding of patients' knowledge and perceptions that influence their behaviour. Our study assessed knowledge of COVID-19 among kidney transplant recipients and donors, hitherto unevaluated. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 325 kidney transplant recipients and 172 donors between 1 May 2020 and 30 June 2020. The survey questionnaire assessed knowledge levels of COVID-19, sociodemographic data, health status, psychosocial impact of COVID-19 and precautionary behaviours during the pandemic. RESULTS: The mean COVID-19 knowledge score of the study population was 7.5 (standard deviation: 2.2) out of 10. The mean score was significantly higher among kidney recipients compared to kidney donors (7.9 [1.9] vs. 6.7 [2.6]; P <0.001). Younger age (21-49 vs. ≥50 years) and higher education (diploma and higher vs. secondary and lower) were associated with significantly higher knowledge scores in donors, but not among recipients ( P -interactions ≤0.01). In both kidney recipients and donors, financial concerns and/or social isolation were associated with lower knowledge levels. CONCLUSIONS Concerted efforts are needed to improve COVID-19 knowledge in kidney transplant recipients and donors, particularly older donors, donors with lower education and patients with financial concerns or feelings of social isolation. Intensive patient education may mitigate the impact of education levels on COVID-19 knowledge levels.
Humans ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Kidney Transplantation ; Middle Aged ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Male ; Female ; Adult ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Transplant Recipients/psychology* ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Tissue Donors/psychology* ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Young Adult ; Aged ; Pandemics

Meta-IMU: A R Shiny App to Conduct Meta-Analysis in Systematic Review and Umbrella Reviews Many tools exist for conducting meta-analyses in systematic reviews, but they are often expensive or difficult for beginners to use. This challenge arises because most tools either fail to address all aspects of meta-analysis comprehensively or lack sufficient guidance for navigating their features. To address these limitations, we developed Meta-IMU, a free R-based Shiny application tailored specifically for beginners. Unlike many existing tools that focus solely on standard systematic reviews, Meta-IMU supports both systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, offering a more versatile approach. To ensure accessibility, Meta-IMU includes built-in instructional videos that guide users step by step, from navigating the application to interpreting the results produced. This guidance ensures users can confidently perform analyses without prior expertise. Meta-IMU encompasses a comprehensive range of features covering key aspects of meta-analysis, such as defining review questions, developing search terms, retrieving studies from various databases, assessing risk of bias, creating tables and plots, analysing small-study effects, performing meta-regression and subgroup analyses, conducting sensitivity analyses, assessing the certainty of evidence, summarizing findings, and generating PRISMA checklist reports. By integrating these functionalities into a single platform, Meta-IMU provides a user-friendly, all-in-one solution. In summary, Meta-IMU is a comprehensive, free application designed to simplify the process of meta-analysis for both systematic reviews and umbrella reviews, making advanced analytical techniques accessible to researchers at any level of experience.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of using “distal acupoints only” vs. “local acupoints mainly combined with distal acupoints” in cases of acute low back pain (ALBP). Methods: A total of 102 eligible patients aged 18–65 years with ALBP lasting less than 6 weeks will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the distal acupoints only group (DPOG) and the local acupoints mainly combined with the distal acupoints group (LPMG). During a 4-week treatment period, patients in the DPOG will receive acupuncture at distal acupoints only (Houxi [SI 3] and Yaotongxue [EX-UE 7]) twice a week, while those in the LPMG group will receive acupuncture at local acupoints (mainly Shenshu [BL 23] and Dachangshu [BL 25]) combined with distal points (Weizhong [BL 40]). The patients in both groups will be evaluated at every session of treatment, and the follow-up will be performed for 3 months. The primary outcome measure will be the change in ALBP intensity, assessed using visual analogue scale scores before and after treatment. The secondary outcome measure will be the evaluation of functional disability using the Oswestry Disability Index. Discussion This study compares the DPOG and LPMG to explore the feasibility of the DPOG in the treatment of ALBP.