Medical students' perception of distance-based education during the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a broad direct impact on education, and at the same time it has significantly changed students' lives. This study examines how Slovenian medical students experienced the shift to distance-based education following multiple lockdowns.

METHODS

The aim of this study is to examine experiences of medical students about distance-based education in the period of multiple lockdowns in 2020/2021. We used focused interviews to collect data. The questionnaire was developed in the following manner: the first set of questions was developed after studying the literature from Slovenia and abroad about distance-based education in higher education during COVID-19 lockdowns. The researchers then discussed this set to narrow the topics. In addition to preformulated questions, additional sub-questions also typical for focused interviews were asked as part of the research. We carried out a qualitative study using a qualitative content analysis method to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Sixteen interviews were conducted. We defined four categories summarizing students' experiences with distance-based education during the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) technical issues, 2) organization of distance-based education, 3) social exclusion of students, and 4) suggestions for improvement. The categories are exclusive and represent individual topics for further analysis of students' experiences with DBE during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results are supported by quotes from the interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students' experiences with DBE mainly revealed shortcomings in computer literacy. Technical issues were largely an indicator that significantly marked students' transition to DBE. Another important finding is that medical students emphasized problems related to social exclusion. Students made suggestions for improvements that broadly relate to the higher education system, and not only to the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Primary care of refugees and migrants. Lesson learnt from the EUR-HUMAN project]

In 2015, local wars, starvation and misery in some Middle Eastern, Asian and African countries forced millions of people to leave their homelands. Many of these people migrated toward Europe, reaching Hungary as well. The refugee crisis created significant challenges for all national healthcare systems across Europe. Limited attention has been given to the extent to which health service provision for refugees and migrants has become a task for primary health care (PHC), which has been unprepared as a profession and pressured by the enormous workload. Hungarian primary care was involved only to an extent in the refugees' health care, as most of the migrants entering Hungary wanted to move forward to other countries. The need for evidence-based patient-centred interventions to assess refugee healthcare needs, and for training programmes for rapid capacity-building for integrated PHC was addressed by the EUropean Refugees - HUman Movement and Advisory Network (EUR-HUMAN) project, which 7 European countries developed together. The overall aim of the EUR-HUMAN project is to enhance the knowledge and expertise of European member states who accept refugees and migrants in addressing their health needs, safeguarding them from risks, while at the same time to minimize cross-border health risks. This initiative focuses on addressing the early arrival period, transition and longer-term settlement of refugees in European host countries. A primary objective of this project is to identify, design and assess interventions to improve PHC delivery for refugees and migrants with a focus on vulnerable groups. The structure, the main focus and outputs of the project are described and summarized in this paper, providing relevant information and access to educational materials for Hungarian (primary care) physicians. The EUR-HUMAN project was operated in 2016 under the auspices of the European Commission and funded by the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA). Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(35): 1414-1422.

Measures of quality, costs and equity in primary health care instruments developed to analyse and compare primary care in 35 countries

BACKGROUND

The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study aims to analyse and compare how primary health care systems in 35 countries perform in terms of quality, costs and equity. This article answers the question 'How can the organisation and delivery of primary health care and its outcomes be measured through surveys of general practitioners (GPs) and patients?' It will also deal with the process of pooling questions and the subsequent development and application of exclusion criteria to arrive at a set of appropriate questions for a broad international comparative study.

METHODS

The development of the questionnaires consisted of four phases: a search for existing validated questionnaires, the classification and selection of relevant questions, shortening of the questionnaires in three consensus rounds and the pilot survey. Consensus was reached on the basis of exclusion criteria (e.g. the applicability for international comparison). Based on the pilot survey, comprehensibility increased and the number of questions was further restricted, as the questionnaires were too long.

RESULTS

Four questionnaires were developed: one for GPs, one for patients about their experiences with their GP, another for patients about what they consider important, and a practice questionnaire. The GP questionnaire mainly focused on the structural aspects (e.g. economic conditions) and care processes (e.g. comprehensiveness of services of primary care). The patient experiences questionnaire focused on the care processes and outcomes (e.g. how do patients experience access to care?). The questionnaire about what patients consider important was complementary to the experiences questionnaire, as it enabled weighing the answers from the latter. Finally, the practice questionnaire included questions on practice characteristics.

DISCUSSION

The QUALICOPC researchers have developed four questionnaires to characterise the organisation and delivery of primary health care and to compare and analyse the outcomes. Data collected with these instruments will allow us not only to show in detail the variation in process and outcomes of primary health care, but also to explain the differences from features of the (primary) health care system.

QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care

Background

The QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe) study aims to evaluate the performance of primary care systems in Europe in terms of quality, equity and costs. The study will provide an answer to the question what strong primary care systems entail and which effects primary care systems have on the performance of health care systems. QUALICOPC is funded by the European Commission under the "Seventh Framework Programme". In this article the background and design of the QUALICOPC study is described.

Methods/design

QUALICOPC started in 2010 and will run until 2013. Data will be collected in 31 European countries (27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey) and in Australia, Israel and New Zealand. This study uses a three level approach of data collection: the system, practice and patient. Surveys will be held among general practitioners (GPs) and their patients, providing evidence at the process and outcome level of primary care. These surveys aim to gain insight in the professional behaviour of GPs and the expectations and actions of their patients. An important aspect of this study is that each patient's questionnaire can be linked to their own GP's questionnaire. To gather data at the structure or national level, the study will use existing data sources such as the System of Health Accounts and the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor Europe (PHAMEU) database. Analyses of the data will be performed using multilevel models.

Discussion

By its design, in which different data sources are combined for comprehensive analyses, QUALICOPC will advance the state of the art in primary care research and contribute to the discussion on the merit of strengthening primary care systems and to evidence based health policy development.

How do older patients and their GPs evaluate shared decision-making in healthcare?

Background

Older persons represent a growing share of the population, yet very little is known about their specific healthcare needs, problems, and expectations. IMPROVE is an international research project that seeks to improve elderly persons' involvement in their healthcare. This paper analyzes perceptions of patient involvement by elderly patients and their GPs in family medicine in Slovenia.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with patients over 70 and their GPs were audio-taped and transcribed. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Specific characteristics of old age must be taken into account in the involvement of older patients. It is important to know the patient's expectations and to communicate clearly with the patient. A trusting relationship between the GP and the patient is a prerequisite for involvement. GPs center involvement on the GP's side. Involvement of the elderly is linked to ethical dilemmas.

Conclusion

Understanding the involvement of the elderly focuses more on building a relationship than on making decisions. It is reasonable to educate GPs and GPs' coworkers about caring relationships. Ethical aspects have often been treated in a theoretical manner, whereas empirical practice may be entirely different from theoretical premises. GPs and older patients must learn more about how to address their ethical dilemmas.

Setting priorities and identifying barriers for general practice research in Europe. Results from an EGPRW meeting

BACKGROUND

In spring 2002, WONCA Europe, the European Society of General Practice/Family Medicine and its Network organizations reached consensus on a 'new' European definition of general practice. Subsequently, the European General Practice Research Workshop (EGPRW) started working on a European General Practice Research Agenda. This topic was addressed during the 2002 EGPRW autumn meeting.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore the views of European general practice researchers on needs and priorities as well as barriers for general practice research in Europe.

METHODS

In seven discussion groups, 43 general practice researchers from 18 European countries had to answer the following questions. (i) What major topics should be included in a research agenda for general practice in your country? (ii) What are the barriers to adequate implementation of general practice research in your country? Group answers were listed and subsequently categorized by two authors.

RESULTS

Research on 'clinical issues' (common diseases, chronic diseases, etc.), including diagnostic strategies, was considered to be the core content of general practice research, with primary care-based morbidity registration essential for surveillance of disease, clinical research and teaching in general practice. There was also consensus on the need for research on education and teaching. 'Insufficient funding opportunities' was perceived to be the major barrier to the development of general practice research.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings could be used as a basis for national checklists of 'content of' and 'conditions for' general practice research. European general practice research training programmes should be developed further.