Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective This study aimed to assess the service quality (SQ) for Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension in primary healthcare settings from the perspective of service users in Iran. Methods The Cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2020 in urban and rural public health centers in the East Azerbaijan province of Iran. A total of 561 individuals aged 18 or above with either or both conditions of T2DM and hypertension were eligible to participate in the study. The study employed a two-step stratified sampling method in East Azerbaijan province, Iran. A validated questionnaire assessed SQ. Data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and multiple linear regression statistical models in STATA-17. Results Among the 561 individuals who participated in the study 176 (31.3%) were individuals with hypertension, 165 (29.4%) with T2DM, and 220 (39.2%) with both hypertension and T2DM mutually. The participants’ anthropometric indicators and biochemical characteristics showed that the mean Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) in individuals with T2DM was 174.4 (Standard deviation (SD) = 73.57) in patients with T2DM without hypertension and 159.4 (SD = 65.46) in patients with both T2DM and hypertension. The total SQ scores were 82.37 (SD = 12.19), 82.48 (SD = 12.45), and 81.69 (SD = 11.75) for hypertension, T2DM, and both conditions, respectively. Among people with hypertension and without diabetes, those who had specific service providers had higher SQ scores (b = 7.03; p  = 0.001) compared to their peers who did not have specific service providers. Those who resided in rural areas had lower SQ scores (b = -6.07; p  = 0.020) compared to their counterparts in urban areas. In the group of patients with T2DM and without hypertension, those who were living in non-metropolitan cities reported greater SQ scores compared to patients in metropolitan areas (b = 5.09; p  = 0.038). Additionally, a one-point increase in self-management total score was related with a 0.13-point decrease in SQ score ( P  = 0.018). In the group of people with both hypertension and T2DM, those who had specific service providers had higher SQ scores (b = 8.32; p  < 0.001) compared to the group without specific service providers. Conclusion Study reveals gaps in T2DM and hypertension care quality despite routine check-ups. Higher SQ correlates with better self-care. Improving service quality in primary healthcare settings necessitates a comprehensive approach that prioritizes patient empowerment, continuity of care, and equitable access to services, particularly for vulnerable populations in rural areas.

Among individuals with hypertension and without diabetes, those with specific service providers demonstrated higher SQ scores (b = 7.03; p < 0.001) compared to those without specific service providers. [...]individuals in rural areas with hypertension and without diabetes exhibited lower SQ scores (b = -6.07; p < 0.05) than their urban counterparts. Conclusion The results of the current study revealed that even though the primary health system has initiated delivering routine check-ups for patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary health centers a decade ago, there is a gap in the quality of services provided. Addressing these disparities requires targeted interventions such as patient and clinician education initiatives, as well as health system reforms to improve access to medication and disease management services in rural areas. Tabriz Health Services Management Research Center, Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran Shabnam Iezadi & Kamal Gholipour 2.

Information exchange regarding the scope and content of health studies is becoming increasingly important. Digital methods, including study websites, can facilitate such an exchange. This scoping review aimed to describe how digital information exchange occurs between the public and researchers in health studies. This scoping review was prospectively registered and adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Eligibility was defined using the population (public and researchers), concept (digital information exchange), and context (health studies) framework. Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science), bibliographies of the included studies, and Google Scholar were searched up to February 2024. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals were screened for inclusion based on the title, abstract, and full text. Data items charted from studies included bibliographic and PCC (Population, Concept, and Context) characteristics. Data were processed into categories that inductively emerged from the data and were synthesized into main themes using descriptive statistics. Overall, 4072 records were screened, and 18 studies published between 2010 and 2021 were included. All studies evaluated or assessed the preferences for digital information exchange. The target populations included the public (mainly adults with any or specific diseases), researchers, or both. The digital information exchange methods included websites, emails, forums, platforms, social media, and portals. Interactivity (ie, if digital information exchange is or should be active or passive) was addressed in half of the studies. Exchange content included health information or data with the aim to inform, recruit, link, or gather innovative research ideas from participants in health studies. We identified 7 facilitators and 9 barriers to digital information exchange. The main facilitators were the consideration of any stakeholder perspectives and needs to clarify expectations and responsibilities, the use of modern or low-cost communication technologies and public-oriented language, and continuous communication of the health study process. The main barriers were that information exchange was not planned or not feasible due to inadequate resources, highly complex technical language was used, and ethical concerns (eg, breach of anonymity if study participants are brought together) were raised. Evidence gaps indicate that new studies should assess the methods and the receiver (ie, public) preferences and needs that are required to deliver and facilitate interactive digital information exchange. Few studies addressing digital information exchange in health studies could be identified in this review. There was little focus on interactivity in such an exchange. Digital information exchange was associated with more barriers than facilitators, suggesting that more effort is required to improve such an exchange between the public and researchers. Future studies should investigate interactive digital methods and the receiver preferences and needs required for such an exchange.