METHODS: Consensus-driven approach between authors from the six selected countries was applied. Country specific policy documents, official government media statements, mainstream news portals, global statistics databases and latest published literature available between January-October 2020 were utilised for information retrieval. Situational and epidemiological trend analyses were conducted. Country-specific interventions and challenges were described. Based on evidence appraised, a descriptive framework was considered through a consensus. The authors subsequently outlined the lessons learned, challenges ahead and interventions that needs to be in place to control the pandemic.
RESULTS: The total number of people infected with COVID-19 between 1 January and 16 November 2020 had reached 48,520 in Malaysia, 58,124 in Singapore, 3,875 in Thailand, 470,648 in Indonesia, 409,574 in Philippines and 70,161 in Myanmar. The total number of people infected with COVID- 19 in the six countries from January to 31 October 2020 were 936,866 cases and the mortality rate was 2.42%. Indonesia had 410,088 cases with a mortality rate of 3.38%, Philippines had 380,729 cases with a mortality rate of 1.90%, Myanmar had 52,706 cases with a mortality rate of 2.34%, Thailand had 3,780 cases with a mortality rate of 1.56%, Malaysia had 31,548 cases with a mortality rate of 0.79%, and Singapore had 58,015 cases with a mortality rate of 0.05% over the 10- month period. Each country response varied depending on its real-time situations based on the number of active cases and economic situation of the country.
CONCLUSION: The number of COVID-19 cases in these countries waxed and waned over the 10-month period, the number of cases may be coming down in one country, and vice versa in another. Each country, if acting alone, will not be able to control this pandemic. Sharing of information and resources across nations is the key to successful control of the pandemic. There is a need to reflect on how the pandemic affects individuals, families and the community as a whole. There are many people who cannot afford to be isolated from their families and daily wage workers who cannot afford to miss work. Are we as a medical community, only empathising with our patients or are we doing our utmost to uphold them during this time of crisis? Are there any other avenues which can curb the epidemic while reducing its impact on the health and socio-economic condition of the individual, community and the nation?
METHODS: The original English version of the CHAOS-6 underwent forward-backward translation into the Malay language. The finalised Malay version was administered to 105 myocardial infarction survivors in a Malaysian cardiac health facility. We performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using structural equation modelling. A path diagram and fit statistics were yielded to determine the Malay version's validity. Composite reliability was tested to determine the scale's reliability.
RESULTS: All 105 myocardial infarction survivors participated in the study. The CFA yielded a six-item, one-factor model with excellent fit statistics. Composite reliability for the single factor CHAOS-6 was 0.65, confirming that the scale is reliable for Malay speakers.
CONCLUSION: The Malay version of the CHAOS-6 was reliable and showed the best fit statistics for our study sample. We thus offer a simple, brief, validated, reliable and novel instrument to measure chaos, the Skala Kecelaruan, Keriuhan & Tertib Terubahsuai (CHAOS-6), for the Malaysian population.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from October to December 2019 among 178 hospital workers at the Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The study utilized a self-administered questionnaire that consisted of items on sociodemographics, work characteristics, sources of bullying, and the validated Malay version of the 23-item Negative Acts Questionnaire - revised to determine the prevalence of bullying. Descriptive and inferential statistics were analyzed using SPSS 22.0. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
Results: The prevalence of workplace bullying in this sample was 11.2%. Superiors or supervisors from other departments and colleagues were the main perpetrators. In the multivariate model, working for 10 years or less (aOR 4, 95% CI 1.3-12.3; P=0.014) and not being involved in patient care (aOR 5, 95% CI 2.5-10; P<0.001) were statistically significant attributes associated with workplace bullying.
Conclusion: Workplace bullying in the current study was strongly associated with occupational characteristics, particularly length of service and service orientation of the workers. Hospital directors and managers could undertake preventive measures to identify groups vulnerable to bullying and subsequently craft appropriate coping strategies and mentoring programs to curb bullying.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 185 families of paediatric COVID-19 cases from 1 February 2020 to 31 December 2020. We identified the index case for each household and gathered the socio-demographic, epidemiological investigation results and risk factors for household transmission from medical case records. The secondary attack rate was calculated, and logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with secondary household transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
RESULTS: Of the 848 household contacts, 466 acquired secondary infections, resulting in a secondary attack rate of 55%. The median age of the secondary cases was 12 years. Female household contacts and household contacts who slept in the same room with the index case were significantly associated with increased risk for COVID-19. Other independent risk factors associated with higher transmission risk in the household included an index case who was symptomatic, a household index case aged greater than 18 years and a male household index case.
CONCLUSIONS: High rates of household transmission of COVID-19 were found, indicating households were a major setting of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Our data provide insight into the risk factors for household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Malaysia.
METHODS: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.