Search

Abstract Aim The aim and objective of this study was to understand how non‐specialized nurses understand the possible barriers and facilitators of inpatient care for type 1 diabetes. Design An interpretative phenomenology approach was conducted. Methods The sample consisted of non‐specialized nurses (N = 24) working in medical, surgical and nephrology wards in the state hospitals in Cyprus. The data were collected during 2016‐2018 from one focus group with nurses (N = 6) and individual semi‐structured interviews with nurses (N = 18) conducted. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist used to ensure the quality of the study. Results It is evident from the study findings that nurses experience several barriers in diabetes inpatient care reported which are of great concern since this could have adverse effects on patients' outcomes. Only one facilitator has been reported by few nurses.

Aim: The aim of the study was to understand how non-specialized nurses and people with diabetes understand nurses’ roles in diabetes inpatient care. Background: Diabetes mellitus is a major public health issue that places a significant burden on patients and healthcare systems and world leaders have targeted it for priority action. Design: An interpretative phenomenology approach (IPA). Methods: A total of 24 non-specialized nurses working in medical, surgical and nephrology wards and 24 people with type 1 diabetes who use the services of the state hospitals in Cyprus. The data were collected in two phases: firstly, focus groups with nurses (n = 1) and people with diabetes (n = 2) were conducted and analysed and then individual semi-structured interviews with nurses (n = 18) and with people with diabetes (n = 12) were conducted. Findings: It is evident from the study findings that nurses experience several roles in diabetes inpatient care. Most of these roles have been identified by people with diabetes as well. These roles are summarized as follows: medication administration, patient education, screening of complications, diet and psychological support. However, most of the participants raised concerns about nurses’ ability to conduct such roles. Conclusion: Participants suggest that nurses experience several roles in caring for diabetes inpatients and this view was also shared by people with diabetes. However, it was obvious that these roles differ between specialities. The findings showed that even though participants recognized a number of roles in diabetes inpatient care, their description of how they perform these roles was vague, and they raised concerns about their readiness to take on some of these roles.

Background: The aim of this study was to comprehend how people with diabetes view their experiences of the possible barriers and facilitators in inpatient care for type 1 diabetes from non-specialized nurses. Design: An interpretative phenomenology analysis (IPA) was conducted. Methods: The sample consisted of people with type 1 diabetes 1 (n = 24) who use the services of the state hospitals in Cyprus. The data were collected in two phases: firstly, focus groups with people with diabetes (n = 2) were conducted and analysed, and then individual semi-structured interviews with people with diabetes (n = 12) were conducted. Results: It is evident from the findings that people with diabetes experienced several barriers in diabetes inpatient care, which is concerning since this can have adverse effects on patients’ outcomes. No facilitators were reported. Conclusion: Significant results were found in relation to the barriers to diabetes inpatient care. Crucially, the findings demonstrate that all these factors can negatively affect the quality of care of patients with diabetes, and most of these factors are related not only to diabetes care but also generally to all patients who receive inpatient care. Interestingly, no participant reported any facilitators to their care, which further affected the negative perceptions of the care received.

Introduction: The current financial crisis has affected the daily life of citizens. Due to the unemployment, job insecurity, stress and many other factors, population health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is affected. Persons in higher socioeconomic status tend to have higher HRQoL. Educational level, age, gender, low income, marital status and other demographic factors are associated with quality of life. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling of both employed and unemployed individuals in Attica, Greece, population from February 2014 to March 2015. To evaluate HRQoL SF-36v2 questionnaire was used. Statistical program SPSS 21.0 was used for data analysis. Results: The studied population consisted of 1049 people (52.7% female and 47.3% male) with an average age of 37.1 years and standard deviation of 11.8. 91% were Greek, 36.8% had high school graduates and 62.4 were employed. In univariate analysis, work status, educational level, age, low income, parenthood, chronic illness and nationality were found to be related to the score of the participants at least one dimension. In linear regression analysis, there are statistically significant correlations between educational level, work status, chronic illness and age with HRQoL of the participants. Conclusions: Improvements of HRQoL should be directed towards chronic illness prevention, lifelong education, better information about health issues, the improvements of access to health services of elderly (vulnerable population in general) and unemployment reduction. HRQoL is not only a health policy issue but mainly an economic and social policy matter.