Search

Objectives To evaluate lung cancer (LC) risk factor awareness among Palestinians and identify factors associated with good awareness.Design Cross-sectional study.Settings Participants were recruited using convenience sampling from hospitals, primary healthcare centres (PHCs) and public spaces located at 11 governorates in Palestine.Participants Of 5174 approached, 4817 participants completed the questionnaire (response rate=93.1%). A total of 4762 questionnaires were included: 2742 from the West Bank and Jerusalem (WBJ) and 2020 from the Gaza Strip. Exclusion criteria were working or studying in a health-related field, having a nationality other than Palestinian and visiting oncology departments or clinics at the time of data collection.Tool A modified version of the validated LC Awareness Measure was used for data collection.Primary and secondary outcomes The primary outcome was LC risk factor awareness level as determined by the number of factors recognised: poor (0–3), fair (4–7) and good (8–10). Secondary outcomes include the recognition of each LC risk factor.Results Smoking-related risk factors were more often recognised than other LC risk factors. The most recognised risk factors were ‘smoking cigarettes’ (n=4466, 93.8%) and ‘smoking shisha (waterpipes)’ (n=4337, 91.1%). The least recognised risk factors were ‘having a close relative with LC’ (n=2084, 43.8%) and ‘having had treatment for any cancer in the past’ (n=2368, 49.7%).A total of 2381 participants (50.0%) displayed good awareness of LC risk factors. Participants from the WBJ and the Gaza Strip had similar likelihood to display good awareness (50.6% vs 49.1%). Being≥45 years, having higher education and monthly income, knowing someone with cancer and visiting hospitals and PHCs seemed to have a positive impact on displaying good awareness.Conclusion Half of study participants displayed good awareness of LC risk factors. Educational interventions are warranted to further improve public awareness of LC risk factors, especially those unrelated to smoking.

Objectives This study examined the attitudes of nurses and doctors to key patient safety concepts, evaluated differences and similarities between professional groups and assessed positive and negative attitudes to identify target areas for future training.Setting Four major governmental hospitals in the Gaza-Strip.Participants A convenience sample of 424 nurses and 150 physicians working for at least 6 months in the study hospitals.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measures were mean scores with SD as measured for individual items and nine main patient safety domains assessed by the Attitudes to Patient Safety Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures were the proportions of doctors and nurses, that gave a positive response to each item, represented as percentage of each group.Results Nurses and doctors held moderately positive attitudes towards patient safety with five out of nine domain scores >3.5 of 5. Doctors showed slightly more positive attitudes than nurses, despite a smaller proportion of doctors having received patient safety training with 37.5% compared with 41.9% of nurses. Both professions displayed their most positive patient safety attitudes in the same domains (‘team functioning’ and ‘working hours as a cause for error’), as well as their two most negative attitudes (‘importance of patient safety in the curriculum’ and ‘professional incompetence as a cause of error’), demonstrating significant deficits in understanding medical errors. A specific challenge will be the negative attitudes of both professions towards patient safety training for wider dissemination of this content in the postgraduate curriculum.Conclusion Patient safety attitudes were moderately positive in both professional groups. Target of future patient safety training should be enhancing the understanding of error in medicine. Any training has to be motivating and relevant for clinicians, demonstrating its importance in ongoing professional learning.