PubMed · 5071262
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D Platt. 1972. Primary care.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5071262/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: To improve the quality of integrated care, we developed indicators for assessing current practice in a large reference center for head and neck oncology. METHODS: We defined a set of indicators based on integrated care literature, national evidence-based guidelines for patients with head and neck cancer, and the opinions of professionals and patients. We tested this set regarding assessment of current practice and clinimetric characteristics. RESULTS: The final set consisted of 8 integrated care indicators and 23 specific indicators for patients with head and neck cancer. Current practice assessment produced high scores for the integrated care indicators, but the specific indicators showed room for improvement. The practice test showed that 9 indicators had good applicability. CONCLUSIONS: The indicators, while based on evidence-based guidelines and the principles of integrated care, should incorporate patients' opinions and include a practice test. Our results show that the quality of integrated care for patients with head and neck cancer could be improved.
The enormous human and economic costs associated with occupational stress suggest that initiatives designed to prevent and/or reduce employee stress should be high on the agenda of workplace health promotion (WHP) programmes. Although employee stress is often the target of WHP, reviews of job stress interventions suggest that the common approach to combating job stress is to focus on the individual without due consideration of the direct impacts of working conditions on health as well as the effects of working conditions on employees' ability to adopt and sustain 'healthy' behaviours. The purpose of the first part of this paper is to highlight the criticisms of the individual approach to job stress and to examine the evidence for developing strategies that combine both individual and organizational-directed interventions (referred to as the comprehensive approach). There is a risk that WHP practitioners may lose sight of the role that they can play in developing and implementing the comprehensive approach, particularly in countries where occupational health and safety authorities are placing much more emphasis on identifying and addressing organizational sources of job stress. The aim of the second part of this paper is therefore to provide a detailed description of what the comprehensive approach to stress prevention/reduction looks like in practice and to examine the means by which WHP can help develop initiatives that address both the sources and the symptoms of job stress.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.