Hamid Asayesh, Mostafa Qorbani , Mohammad Parvaresh Masoud, Hossein Rahmani Anarki, Hossein Ansari, Morteza Mansourian, Aziz Rezapour, Farshad Sharifi, Rasoul Mohammadi,
Volume 13, Issue 6 (9-2014)
Abstract
Background: Health staffs have different attitudes and beliefs toward elders that have effect on their behaviors in health service delivery to elders. This study was done for determination of Golestan province health centers general practitioners (GPs) attitude toward elders.
Methods: In this cross sectional study, 152 general practitioners of Golestan province health centers were selected via random sampling. The Kogan's Attitudes toward Older People Scale (KAOPS) questionnaire was used as data gathering tools. Data analysis was done in SPSS 16 software using Pearson correlation coefficient, paired t-test, t-tests and one way ANOVA test.
Results: Mean (standard deviation) of participants age was 34.73 (6.26) years. Mean (standard deviation) of total score of attitude toward elder scale was 115.48 (10.22) (score range in scale 34-204). 54.2 percent of GPs have lower score than mean. Negative attitude mean score were higher than positive attitude mean score which was statistically significant (P= 0.0001).
Conclusion: According to our finding, only half of GPs had favorite attitude toward elder. Whereas negative attitudes were higher than positive attitude toward elder, designing some programs for change in attitude of heath care staffs is necessary.
Farzane Saeidifard, Akbar Soltani, Fereshteh Ghadiri, Sahar Manavi, Motahareh Taleba, Moein Foroughi, Parvaneh Ansari, Mostafa Qorbani, Hamideh Moosapour,
Volume 17, Issue 4 (5-2018)
Abstract
Background: It is critical to understand how accurately physicians can estimate the importance of each clinical finding in estimating the probability of a specific diagnosis in the process of clinical decision making. This study aimed to investigate whether physicians’ estimates of the importance of various clinical findings of ascites correlated with the positive likelihood ratios of these findings in diagnosis of ascites.
Methods: One hundred and ten physicians were asked to respond to a questionnaire. In this questionnaire they were presented with a clinical scenario about a patient suspected of having ascites followed by a list of clinical findings. Participants were asked to assign a weight (between 0 and 100%) to each clinical finding based on their perception of how much the presence of that finding changed the probability of ascites for the patient. Positive likelihood ratios of those findings were extracted from current best evidence. We investigated if the weights assigned by physicians were associated with the positive likelihood ratios of those findings.
Results: Significant differences were discovered between the weights assigned by the physicians and the positive likelihood ratios for each clinical finding. Significant positive correlation was observed between the weights assigned by different groups of physicians.
Conclusion: Physicians inaccurately estimated the importance of various clinical findings in the diagnosis of ascites. Further research is needed to determine if such inaccurate estimations would lead to any adverse clinical outcomes.
