Background: Urban slums are characterised by unique challenging living conditions, which increase their inhabitants’ vulnerability to specific health conditions. The identification and prioritization of the key health issues occurring in these settings is essential for the development of programmes that aim to enhance the health of local slum communities effectively. As such, the present study sought to identify and prioritise the key health issues occurring in urban slums, with a focus on the perceptions of health professionals and community workers, in the rapidly growing city of Bangalore, India. Methods: The study followed a two-phased mixed methods design. During Phase I of the study, a total of 60 health conditions belonging to four major categories: - 1) non-communicable diseases; 2) infectious diseases; 3) maternal and women’s reproductive health; and 4) child health - were identified through a systematic literature review and semi-structured interviews conducted with health professionals and other relevant stakeholders with experience working with urban slum communities in Bangalore. In Phase II, the health issues were prioritised based on four criteria through a consensus workshop conducted in Bangalore. Results: The top health issues prioritized during the workshop were: diabetes and hypertension (non-communicable diseases category), dengue fever (infectious diseases category), malnutrition and anaemia (child health, and maternal and women’s reproductive health categories). Diarrhoea was also selected as a top priority in children. These health issues were in line with national and international reports that listed them as top causes of mortality and major contributors to the burden of diseases in India. Conclusions: The results of this study will be used to inform the development of technologies and the design of interventions to improve the health outcomes of local communities. Identification of priority health issues in the slums of other regions of India, and in other low and lower middle-income countries, is recommended.
Quality of life serves a reference against which you can measure the various domains of your own life or that of other individuals, and that can change over time. This definition of the World Health Organization encompasses many elements of daily living, including features of the individual and the environment around us, which can either be the social environment, the built environment, or other environmental aspects. This is one of the rationales for the special issue on “Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment”. This special issue is a joint project by the Centre of Expertise Health Innovation of the Hague University of Applied Sciences in The Netherlands. The main focus of this Special Issue is how optimising the interplay between people, the environment, and technology can enhance people’s quality of life. The focus of the contributions in this special issue is on the person or end‐user and his or her environment, both the physical, social, and digital environment, and on the interaction between (1) people, (2) health, care, and systems, and (3) technology. Recent advances in technology offer a wide range of solutions that support a healthy lifestyle, good quality of life, and effective and efficient healthcare processes, for a large number of end‐users, both patients/clients from minus 9 months until 100+ years of age, as well as practitioners/physicians. The design of new services and products is at the roots of serving the quality of life of people. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245106 (Editorial of Special Issue with the same title: "Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment")
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Given the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning. Methods: A scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors. Results: Nineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning steps: patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient’s problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated. Conclusion: All serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.
