Functionalism and holism: community nurses' perceptions of health

This paper reports the results of a study that was designed to explore and examine the perceptions of two groups of newly qualified community nurses about the factors they considered to be embedded within the concepts of health, health-enhancing behaviours at individual, family and community levels and their 'innermost self'. The research was exploratory in nature, and included two sample groups: group 1 comprised 16 newly qualified health visitors; group 2 comprised 16 newly qualified community mental health nurses. Purposive sampling was used and data were collected using semi-structured interviews. The group of health visitors perceived health in terms of physical fitness and functional states. At a global level they perceived the need to provide education on health matters. They gave generously to 'charities' and perceived the 'inner self' as 'that part that matters'. The group of community mental health nurses perceived health in terms of holism and being states. Their concept of health was related to listening to each individual's perception of what is 'right' and 'health-enhancing' for them. At a global level they considered the protection of the ozone layer and the promotion of a just and equitable society which focused on the reduction of poverty, to be key health-enhancing activities. They perceived their 'innermost self' to be 'that part of me that makes life worth living', and the soul. The findings have implications for developing new and creative approaches for teaching the holistic concept of health and healing. Educational activities could be designed which strive to ensure that nurses themselves have safe and health embracing opportunities for exploring all the elements that are embedded within the topic of health. Their role in facilitating holistic health promoting activities for all clients also needs to be addressed.     

Life Support Courses: Are They Effective?

Study objective: To determine the effectiveness of life support courses for health care providers on the basis of one of three outcomes: (1) patient mortality and morbidity, (2) retention of knowledge or skills, and (3) change in practice behavior. Methods: English-language articles from 1975 to 1992 were identified through MEDLINE and ERIC searches, bibliographies of articles, and current abstracts. Studies were considered relevant if they included a study population of life support providers, an intervention of any of the identified life support courses, and assessment of at least one of the three listed outcomes. Relevant studies were selected and validity scores were assigned to them by agreement of two independent reviewers, using a structured form to assess validity. Data on setting, methods, participants, intervention, and outcomes were then abstracted and verified. Results: Seventeen of 67 identified studies pertaining to life support courses met the inclusion criteria. (1) All three mortality and morbidity studies indicated a positive impact, with an overall odds ratio of .28 (95% confidence interval [CI], .22 to .37). (2) No net increase in scores was found in 5 of 8 studies of retention of knowledge and in 8 of 9 studies of skills retention. Two of three studies reporting refresher activities yielded positive effects on knowledge retention. Outcomes were not significantly different between groups taught with modular or didactic techniques. (3) Studies assessing behavioral outcome were methodologically weak. Conclusion: Among providers, retention of knowledge and skills acquired by participation in support courses is poor. However, refresher activities increase knowledge retention. Modular courses are as good as lectures for learning course material. There is evidence that use of the Advanced Trauma Life Support course has decreased mortality and morbidity. Further studies of patient outcome and provider behaviors are warranted. [Jabbour M, Osmond MH, Klassen TP: Life support courses: Are they effective? Ann Emerg Med December 1996;28:690-698.]     

Multimorbidity and Evidence Generation

Most people with a chronic disease actually have more than one, a condition known as multimorbidity. Despite this, the evidence base to prevent adverse disease outcomes has taken a disease-specific approach. Drawing on a conference, Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients, the goal of this paper is to identify challenges to the generation of evidence to support the care of people with multimorbidity and to make recommendations for improvement. We identified three broad categories of challenges: 1) challenges to defining and measuring multimorbidity; 2) challenges related to the effects of multimorbidity on study design, implementation and analysis; and 3) challenges inherent in studying heterogeneity of treatment effects in patients with differing comorbid conditions. We propose a set of recommendations for consideration by investigators and others (reviewers, editors, funding agencies, policymaking organizations) involved in the creation of evidence for this common type of person that address each of these challenges. The recommendations reflect a general approach that emphasizes broader inclusion (recruitment and retention) of patients with multimorbidity, coupled with more rigorous efforts to measure comorbidity and comorbidity burden and the influence of multimorbidity on outcomes and the effects of therapy. More rigorous examination of heterogeneity of treatment effects requires careful attention to prioritizing the most important comorbid-related questions, and also requires studies that provide greater statistical power than conventional trials have provided. Relatively modest changes in the orientation of current research along these lines can be helpful in pointing to and partially addressing selected knowledge gaps. However, producing a robust evidence base to support patient-centered decision making in complex individuals with multimorbidity, exposed to many different combinations of potentially interacting factors that can modify the risks and benefits of therapies, is likely to require a clinical research enterprise fundamentally restructured to be more fully integrated with routine clinical practice.