Browsing by Author "Milićević, Milena Šantrić (57209748201)"

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from −2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice-and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Emerging literature is highlighting the huge toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health workers. However, prior to the crisis, the wellbeing of this group was already of concern. The aim of this paper is to describe the frequency of distress and wellbeing, measured by the expanded 9-item Mayo Clinic Wellbeing Index (eWBI), among general practitioners/family physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify levers to mitigate the risk of distress. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among GP practices. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software using Version 7 of the database, which consisted of the cleaned data of 33 countries available as of 3 November 2021. Data from 3711 respondents were included. eWBI scores ranged from −2 to 9, with a median of 3. Using a cutoff of ≥2, 64.5% of respondents were considered at risk of distress. GPs with less experience, in smaller practices, and with more vulnerable patient populations were at a higher risk of distress. Significant differences in wellbeing scores were noted between countries. Collaboration from other practices and perception of having adequate governmental support were significant protective factors for distress. It is necessary to address practice-and system-level organizational factors in order to enhance wellbeing and support primary care physicians. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Objective: To provide insight of national activities and international assistance in PHC reform and to assess their effects on technical and allocative efficiency as well as financial sustainability of primary health care in the Republic of Serbia. Materials and methods: Analytical framework of the study consisted of gathering and reviewing of relevant political documents, international assistance project documentation, and analysis of routinely collected national statistical data based on the evaluation model of three groups of criteria: allocative, technical efficiency and financial sustainability in the public sector of Serbia from 2000 to 2007. Time trends were analyzed by Poisson regression models using average annual percentage changes - AAPC, and the percent of targeted change achieved by progress quotient - PQ. Results: Allocative efficiency of the PHC during period of 8 years was improved, but technical efficiency was almost unchanged for all service, except for preschool health care. Financial sustainability was also improved measured by indirect indicators of health expenditure. Conclusions: Results of this study indicated that we are on the right track with PHC reform, and international support is in accordance with the reform goals. Our approach has been and will remain incremental, gradualist and multi-faceted. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) is an evidence-based approach used to reduce the risk of infection transmission within the healthcare environment. Effective IPC practices ensure safe and quality healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for enhanced IPC measures and the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized the need for strict adherence to the basic principles of IPC. This paper aims to describe the IPC strategies implemented in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors that impact their adoption. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among general practices. Data from 4466 practices in 33 countries were included in the analysis. Our results showed a notable improvement in IPC during COVID-19 with more practices reporting that staff members never wore nail polish (increased from 34% to 46.2%); more practices reporting that staff never wear a ring/bracelet (increased from 16.1% to 32.3%); and more practices using a cleaning protocol (increased from 54.9% to 72.7%). Practice population size and the practice payment system were key factors related to adoption of a) range of IPC measures including patient flow arrangements and infrastructural elements. An understanding of the interplay between policy, culture, systemic supports, and behavior are necessary to obtain sustained improvement in IPC measures. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) is an evidence-based approach used to reduce the risk of infection transmission within the healthcare environment. Effective IPC practices ensure safe and quality healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for enhanced IPC measures and the World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized the need for strict adherence to the basic principles of IPC. This paper aims to describe the IPC strategies implemented in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors that impact their adoption. Data were collected by means of an online self-reported questionnaire among general practices. Data from 4466 practices in 33 countries were included in the analysis. Our results showed a notable improvement in IPC during COVID-19 with more practices reporting that staff members never wore nail polish (increased from 34% to 46.2%); more practices reporting that staff never wear a ring/bracelet (increased from 16.1% to 32.3%); and more practices using a cleaning protocol (increased from 54.9% to 72.7%). Practice population size and the practice payment system were key factors related to adoption of a) range of IPC measures including patient flow arrangements and infrastructural elements. An understanding of the interplay between policy, culture, systemic supports, and behavior are necessary to obtain sustained improvement in IPC measures. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Background evaluation is a systematic process that facilitates measurement of the extent to which a student has attained the educational objective.Objectives the article objectives were to describe the teaching evaluation approach of the Master of Health Policy and Management program developed at Centre School of Public Health, the School of Medicine, Belgrade University.Methods the evaluation strategy for the Master of Health Policy and Management program (which has not been completed yet) for four obligatory courses involves two simple components: Evaluation of student performance and student evaluation of the teaching process.The teaching evaluation was based on a questionnaire with a total of 11 questions.External evaluation was conducted by an individual expert who visited one course.Results the average final score for four courses was very high, somewhat higher than 86 points (of a maximum of 100) with a standard deviation of 9.76 points. However, the average final score per course differed significantly (F=6.46, p=0.001). Overall the average student's rating by questionnaire of all courses was 4.38 (of a maximum of 5),whereas the average marks for assessment of the specific characteristics of the course ranged from 3.65 (understandable teaching material and handouts) to 4.68 (the level of preparation by lecturers/instructors). Specific courses differed significantly in the overall rating (F=10.81, p=0.000).Conclusion The average rating of teachers and instructors was high, as was the average final score of students.However, students rated teaching slightly better than teachers evaluated their knowledge and skills. © Springer-Verlag 2010.