4. Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) - Faculties submissions

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/37773

Browse

Filters

2021 - 20232

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.South AfricaSubject: search.filters.subject.SDG-3: Good health and well-beingSubject: search.filters.subject.SDG-4: Quality educationSubject: search.filters.subject.COVID-19Has files: Yes

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    COVID-19 and health care worker exposure at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital
    (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2021-12-05) Glatt, Sara Chaya; Menezes, Colin; Winchow, Lai ling; Tsitsi, Merika
    Background: Health care workers (HCWs) are at an increased risk of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Appropriate risk assessments and testing are essential to reduce transmission and avoid workforce depletion. Objective: Investigate the risk of COVID-19 infection among HCWs at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital who fulfil the Person Under Investigation (PUI) case definition or had exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 contact. Methods: A retrospective review of HCW records was conducted over a two month period. Data collected included demographics, exposure type, risk level, and COVID-19 test result. Frequency distribution tables, bivariate analyses and univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results: Among the 1111 HCWs reviewed, 643 were tested with 35.6% positive results. PUI’s accounted for 62.4% of positive cases. Symptomatic HCWs with no known contact were at a greater risk of infection than those with a patient exposure (p=0.000). Risk of testing positive was higher after a patient exposure (p=0.000) compared to a co-worker contact. Conclusion: There is a higher positivity rate among HCWs than the general population. The presence of symptoms warrants testing. Nosocomial transmission was derived from patient more than co-worker contacts.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Final-year medical students' experiences and perceptions of integrated primary care learning at decentralised training sites during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study
    (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2023-09) Ruch, Aviva; George, Ann; Francis, Joel
    Background: There is limited data on the effectiveness of online learning to augment theory and clinical knowledge and skills across decentralised training (DCT) sites. This study explored the 2021 cohort of final-year medical students’ experiences and perceptions of the integrated primary care (IPC) online teaching and learning across five DCT sites affiliated with the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. This information is essential to determine what online IPC teaching and learning should be retained and what adjustments are needed to enhance and standardise IPC online learning across our DCT sites. IPC is a final-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBCH) subject at Wits University. The subject focuses on primary health care, integrating Internal Medicine, Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Family Medicine, Community Paediatrics and Public Health. Training across different sites poses challenges for standardising learning content and the nature and quality of patient engagement and interaction. The Covid-19 pandemic not only exacerbated the difficulties associated with decentralised teaching and learning, but also decreased student-patient interaction. The rapid shift to emergency remote teaching left teachers with limited time to prepare for online and blended teaching and highlighted shortcomings in some health-professions educators’ ability to create meaningful, authentic learning interactions. The study design was underpinned by the Technology Acceptance Model, the Community of Inquiry Model and the Theory of Self-Regulated Learning. Methods: This explanatory sequential mixed-methods design consisted of a cross-sectional online survey conducted in November 2021, followed by two focus-group discussions in December 2021. The 316 final-year medical students who had completed their IPC block were purposively sampled to participate in this study. Medical students who had not yet completed the IPC block were excluded from the study. Twenty-one closed and four open-ended questions explored the students’ perceptions of how the online materials supported their learning and augmented their clinical skills and management of patients, their challenges with learning online, and ways to improve the online-learning experience. The closed and open-ended survey answers were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics and content analysis, respectively. The results of the content analysis are presented graphically. The survey findings informed the questions asked in the focus-group discussions (n = 2 and n = 3). The discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed inductively in MAXQDA. The findings are presented as thematic maps. Results: The survey response rate was 52% (164/316). The respondents were representative of the study population. Most respondents easily accessed the online content, with more than 70% accessing the online content several times a week. More than 80% found the online content logically organised; the content analysis highlighted three categories of reasons why the online content and interactions influenced their learning. The content analysis also identified three categories of reasons why the online content influenced patient management, but more than a third of respondents remained neutral when asked if the online content introduced them to new clinical skills. Quizzes and tests were the preferred learning method. The features that best supported the respondents’ online learning were grouped into five categories: ‘Range of activities’ (n = 73), ‘Content selection’ (n = 56), ‘Flexible access to content’ (n = 8), ‘Organisation of content’ (n = 4) and ‘Other’ features (n = 7). Respondents highlighted several categories that presented challenges to online learning: ‘Pedagogical issues’ (n = 30), ‘Excessive workload’ (n = 27), ‘Operational issues’ (n = 20), ‘Learning issues’ (n = 17), ‘Technical issues’ (n = 11) and ‘Unclear course expectations’ (n = 50). Participants in the focus-group discussions (FGD) concurred with many of the perceptions and experiences of the questionnaire respondents. Three themes were identified in the thematic analysis of the FGD: ‘Features supporting learning’, ‘Challenges of learning online’, and ‘Ways to improve learning’. Conclusions: The respondents and focus-group participants displayed a positive attitude to the IPC online content and interactions offered to them during the Covid-19 pandemic. Their experiences and perceptions offered insights to better support learning through practical suggestions for students and faculty, especially around faculty competency to design meaningful learning interactions, both online and blended. While this study focused on IPC, the student recommendations may apply to other subjects nationally and internationally, suggesting the need for further research into using online teaching to support clinical teaching.