Comparison of Health Status Indicators in Iran with the Eastern Mediterranean Countries Using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods

BACKGROUND

Improving public health is the main goal of healthcare systems across the world. Healthcare policymakers often use comparisons between different healthcare systems to better position their country and use the outcome to develop novel strategies to improve their own public health. The present study aimed to compare the health status indicators in Iran with those of the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) countries using the multiple attribute decision-making (MADM) methods.

METHODS

A descriptive-analytical study was conducted in 2021 at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Data on the ranking of health status indicators in EM countries were obtained from the annual publications of the World Health Organization, World Health Statistics (2016-2020). As part of the MADM mathematical models, the "criteria importance through intercriteria correlation" (CRITIC) model was used to assign weights to health status indicators. In addition, the "multi-criteria optimization and compromise solution" (VIKOR) model was used to rank the EM countries.

RESULTS

The results showed that Bahrain and Somalia ranked first and last on health status indicators, respectively. Iran was ranked fifth among the EM countries. However, while Iran has a better status on all indicators than the mean value of all EM countries, there is a significant gap between the health status in Iran compared to the top-ranked countries.

CONCLUSION

Health care strategies adopted by top-ranked countries, such as Bahrain and Qatar, can be used by Iran and other EM countries as a model to improve their healthcare system.

Informed choice of pregnant women regarding noninvasive prenatal testing in Korea: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

This study explored the degree to which pregnant women in Korea made informed choices regarding noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and investigated factors influencing whether they made informed choices.

METHODS

In total, 129 pregnant women in Korea participated in a web-based survey. Multidimensional measures of informed choice regarding NIPT and decisional conflict were used to measure participants' levels of knowledge, attitudes, deliberation, uptake, and decisional conflict related to NIPT. Additional questions were asked about participants' NIPT experiences and opinions.

RESULTS

All 129 pregnant women were recruited from an online community. Excluding those who expressed neutral attitudes toward NIPT, according to the definition of informed choice used in this study, only 91 made an informed choice (n=63, 69.2%) or an uninformed choice (n=28, 30.8%). Of the latter, 75.0% had insufficient knowledge, 39.3% made a value-inconsistent decision, and 14.3% did not deliberate sufficiently. No difference in decisional conflict was found between the two groups. A significant difference was found between the two groups in the reasons why NIPT was introduced or recommended (p=.021). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that pregnant women who were knowledgeable (odds ratio [OR], 4.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17- 10.47) and deliberated (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98) were significantly more likely to make an informed choice.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study help healthcare providers, including nurses in maternity units, understand pregnant women's experiences of NIPT. Counseling strategies are needed to improve pregnant women's knowledge of NIPT and create an environment that promotes deliberation regarding this decision.

Does management reasoning constitute the backbone of the clinical learning environment?: Conceptual analysis of the existing notions

Management reasoning is a paradigm whereby learning occurs in a context bound fashion on analysing the biophysical factors existing in the clinical learning environment. In the contemporary medical education forums, much importance is being laid on clinical reasoning and this warrants the appropriate usage of the biomedical knowledge in arriving at the diagnosis. We perceive that clinical reasoning, in pure sense, often doesn't solve the purpose of rendering the best management plan to the patient. This holds stronger when the case is non-linear and highly complex in nature. Management reasoning fills the gap between hypotheses generation, i.e. accomplishing diagnosis and devising management plan. Indeed, it is a complex activity relying on several factors including the physician's perceptual abilities and situated cognition derived from formal and informal learning experiences. In contrast to clinical reasoning, which can be taught using structured scenarios, management reasoning necessitates analysing multitude of factors revolving around a patient and prioritizing those in order to titrate the best possible management plan. This commentary spotlights different dimensions of management reasoning, emphasizes the need of teaching it in the current scenarios, enlists the ways it can be taught, and opens the platform for discussing further on this underemphasized topic.

Understanding uncertainty in medicine: concepts and implications in medical education

In an era of high technology and low trust, acknowledging and coping with uncertainty is more crucial than ever. Medical uncertainty has been considered an innate feature of medicine and medical practice. An intolerance to uncertainty increases physicians' stress and the effects of burnout and may be a potential threat to patient safety. Understanding medical uncertainty and acquiring proper coping strategies has been regarded to be a core clinical competency for medical graduates and trainees. Integrating intuition and logic and creating a culture that acknowledges medical uncertainty could be suggested ways to teach medical uncertainty. In this article, the authors describe the concepts of medical uncertainty, its influences on physicians and on medical students toward medical decision making, the role of tolerance/intolerance to uncertainty, and proposed strategies to improve coping with medical uncertainty.

Decision Making Regarding Key Elements of Korean Disaster Psychiatric Assistance Teams Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the key components of Korean disaster psychiatric assistant teams (K-DPATs), to set up new mental health service providing system for the disaster victims.

METHODS

We conducted an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) involving disaster mental health experts, using a pairwise comparison questionnaire to compare the relative importance of the key components of the Korean disaster mental health response system. In total, 41 experts completed the first online survey; of these, 36 completed the second survey. Ten experts participated in panel meetings and discussed the results of the survey and AHP process.

RESULTS

It was agreed that K-DPATs should be independent of the existing mental health system (70.1%), funding for K-DPATs should be provided by the Ministry of Public Safety, and the system should be managed by the Ministry of Health (65.8%). Experts shared the view that K-DPAT leaders would be suitable key decision makers for all types of disaster, with the exception of those involving infectious diseases.

CONCLUSION

K-DPAT, a new model for disaster mental health response systems could improve the insufficiency of the current system, address problems such as fragmentation, and fulfill disaster victims' unmet need for early professional intervention.

Development and Psychometric Properties of the Decision Making on the Type of Delivery Questionnaire in Iranian Women

BACKGROUND

A tool which can help to decide on the determinants in selecting the delivery type is an effective step towards the goals of the World Health. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a scale based on Iranian culture to make decision on the type of delivery.

METHODS

This is a methodological study using a questionnaire proposed by Schneider. The following steps were used to design the project. In the first step, perceptions and experiences of 45 pregnant women, postpartum women, midwives, gynecologists and non-pregnant women were determined based on interviews and observations using focused ethnography. In the second stage, the terms in the questionnaire based on qualitative study was assessed. Then, in the third stage, psychometric testing of the decision making on the type of delivery scale (DMTDS) based on the cultural concepts of decision making towards the type of delivery and its influencing factors based on focused ethnography using face validity, content validity, construct validity, internal consistency and reliability was done on400 pregnant and postpartum women.

RESULTS

The initially developed scale consisted of 60 items on a 5-point Likert scale, which reduced to 43 items following measurement of the face and content validity. The results of the exploratory factor analysis elicited 36 items and a seven-factor structure including motivational beliefs on vaginal delivery, social beliefs towards childbirth, motivational beliefs on cesarean delivery, personal beliefs, sources of information, catastrophic thinking and child birth experiences. Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.80) confirmed the high internal consistency of the scale.

CONCLUSION

The developed questionnaire appears to be a valid and reliable tool for health care providers to measure the women's decision making towards type of delivery. Therefore, this tool can be used in the Iranian community. The scale may help the midwives and obstetricians to be aware of the women's decision regarding their choice of delivery and as a result to plan appropriately in order to reduce unnecessary cesarean sections.