OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to collect real-world cost and HRQOL data, and investigate their associations with multiple disease-severity indicators among AD patients in Thailand.
METHODS: We recruited AD patients aged ≥60 years accompanied by their caregivers at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. A one-time structured interview was conducted to collect disease-severity indicators, HRQOL, and caregiving information using standardized tools. The hospital's database was used to retrieve healthcare resource utilization occurred over 6 months preceding the interview date. Costs were annualized and stratified based on cognitive status. Generalized linear models were employed to evaluate determinants of costs and HRQOL.
RESULTS: Among 148 community-dwelling patients, average annual total societal costs of AD care were $8014 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $7295-$8844) per patient. Total costs of patients with severe stage ($9860; 95% CI: $8785-$11 328) were almost twice as high as those of mild stage ($5524; 95% CI: $4649-$6593). The major cost driver was direct medical costs, particularly those incurred by AD prescriptions. Functional status was the strongest determinant for both total costs and patient's HRQOL (P value
METHODS: Data were from the 10/66 Study. Individuals aged 65 years or older and without dementia at baseline were selected from China, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. Dementia incidence was assessed over 3-5 years, with diagnosis according to the 10/66 Study diagnostic algorithm. Discrimination and calibration were tested for five models: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia risk score (CAIDE); the Study on Aging, Cognition and Dementia (AgeCoDe) model; the Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI); the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI); and the Rotterdam Study Basic Dementia Risk Model (BDRM). Models were tested with use of Cox regression. The discriminative accuracy of each model was assessed using Harrell's concordance (c)-statistic, with a value of 0·70 or higher considered to indicate acceptable discriminative ability. Calibration (model fit) was assessed statistically using the Grønnesby and Borgan test.
FINDINGS: 11 143 individuals without baseline dementia and with available follow-up data were included in the analysis. During follow-up (mean 3·8 years [SD 1·3]), 1069 people progressed to dementia across all sites (incidence rate 24·9 cases per 1000 person-years). Performance of the models varied. Across countries, the discriminative ability of the CAIDE (0·52≤c≤0·63) and AgeCoDe (0·57≤c≤0·74) models was poor. By contrast, the ANU-ADRI (0·66≤c≤0·78), BDSI (0·62≤c≤0·78), and BDRM (0·66≤c≤0·78) models showed similar levels of discriminative ability to those of the development cohorts. All models showed good calibration, especially at low and intermediate levels of predicted risk. The models validated best in Peru and poorest in the Dominican Republic and China.
INTERPRETATION: Not all dementia prediction models developed in HICs can be simply extrapolated to LMICs. Further work defining what number and which combination of risk variables works best for predicting risk of dementia in LMICs is needed. However, models that transport well could be used immediately for dementia prevention research and targeted risk reduction in LMICs.
FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust, WHO, US Alzheimer's Association, and European Research Council.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to critically evaluate and determine the effectiveness of educational interventions in improving pharmacogenomics knowledge and practice.
METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO. Studies on pharmacogenomics educational interventions for health care professionals and students with pre- and post-intervention assessments and results were included. No restrictions were placed on time, language, or educational contexts. The educational outcomes measured include both objective and subjective outcomes. The pharmacogenomics competency domains used to judge educational interventions are based on the competency domains listed by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacies (AACP). The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health was used for the quality assessment of pre-post studies with no control group and the controlled intervention studies. No meta-analysis was conducted; the data were synthesized qualitatively. The systematic review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS: Fifty studies were included in this review. All included studies integrated the AACP pharmacogenomics competency domains into their educational interventions. Most of the studies had educational interventions that integrated clinical cases (n = 44; 88%). Knowledge was the most frequently evaluated outcome (n = 34; 68%) and demonstrated significant improvement after the educational intervention that integrated AACP pharmacogenomics competency domains and employed active learning with clinical case inclusion.
CONCLUSION: This review provided evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions in improving pharmacogenomics knowledge and practice. Incorporating pharmacogenomics competency domains into education and training, with patient cases for healthcare professionals and students, dramatically improved their pharmacogenomics knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in practice.
METHOD: Eleven focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with a purposive sample of 89 participants aged > 50 from the major ethnic groups in the Segamat District, Johor State. FGDs were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We identified trust in doctors as a key reason for whether or not to seek health care. Generally, the participants had low awareness of CRC sign/symptoms and screening. Emotional and logistic concerns about sending a stool sample to a clinic emerged as the main barriers to screening. Simplified illustrated instructions about stool collection in Malay, Chinese and Tamil, free screening at health clinics and reminders to complete the iFOBT test were perceived to facilitate engagement in screening, and posited as strategies that were likely to increase iFOBT uptake.
CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians play a crucial role in terms of reducing patient's misperceptions, recommending screening to patients, enhancing attendance, and improving uptake of CRC screening. There is a need for further research to investigate ways in which to reduce identified barriers and implement and test potential facilitative strategies as well as examine adherence by doctors to clinical guidelines about CRC screening.
METHODS: Women aged 40-74 years, from Segamat, Malaysia, with a mobile phone number, who participated in the South East Asian Community Observatory health survey, (2018) were randomized to an intervention (IG) or comparison group (CG). The IG received a multi-component mHealth intervention, i.e. information about BC was provided through a website, and telephone calls and text messages from community health workers (CHWs) were used to raise BC awareness and navigate women to CBE services. The CG received no intervention other than the usual option to access opportunistic screening. Regression analyses were conducted to investigate between-group differences over time in uptake of screening and variable influences on CBE screening participation.
RESULTS: We recruited 483 women in total; 122/225 from the IG and 144/258 from the CG completed the baseline and follow-up survey. Uptake of CBE by the IG was 45.8% (103/225) whilst 3.5% (5/144) of women from the CG who completed the follow-up survey reported that they attended a CBE during the study period (adjusted OR 37.21, 95% CI 14.13; 98.00, p<0.001). All IG women with a positive CBE attended a follow-up mammogram (11/11). Attendance by IG women was lower among women with a household income ≥RM 4,850 (adjusted OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20; 0.95, p = 0.038) compared to participants with a household income
METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews with 22 people (health professionals, cancer survivors, community volunteers and member from a non-governmental organization) and four focus group discussions (n = 22 participants) with women from a local community were conducted. All participants were purposively sampled and female residents registered with the South East Asia Community Observatory aged ≥40 years were eligible to participate in the focus group discussions. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis illuminated barriers, challenges and opportunities across six domains: (i) personal experiences and barriers to help-seeking as well as financial and travel access barriers; (ii) primary care challenges (related to delivering clinical breast examination and teaching breast-self-examination); (iii) secondary care challenges (related to mammogram services); (iv) disconnection between secondary and primary care breast cancer screening pathways; and (v) opportunities to improve breast cancer early detection relating to community civil service society activities (i.e. awareness raising, support groups, addressing stigma/embarrassment and encouraging husbands to support women) and vi) links between public healthcare personnel and community (i.e. improving breast self-examination education, clinical breast examination provision and subsidised mammograms).
CONCLUSION: The results point to a variety of reasons for low uptake and, therefore, to the complex nature of improving breast cancer screening and early detection. There is a need to adopt a systems approach to address this complexity and to take account of the socio-cultural context of communities in order, in turn, to strengthen cancer control policy and practices in Malaysia.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine and contrast the perceptions of MS patients, neurologists, and palliative care physicians towards providing palliative care for patients with MS in Malaysia.
METHODS: 12 MS patients, 5 neurologists, and 5 palliative care physicians participated in this qualitative study. Each participant took part in a semi-structured interview. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analysed using an iterative thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: Patients and neurologists mostly associated palliative care with the end-of-life and struggled to understand the need for palliative care in MS. Another barrier was the lack of understanding about the palliative care needs of MS patients. Palliative care physicians also identified the scarcity of resources and their lack of experience with MS as barriers. The current referral-based care pathway itself was found to be a barrier to the provision of palliative care.
CONCLUSIONS: MS patients in Malaysia face several barriers in accessing palliative care. Overcoming these barriers will require improving the shared understanding of palliative care and its role in MS. The existing care pathway also needs to be reformed to ensure that it improves access to palliative care for MS patients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify, review, map, and summarize findings from different types of literature reviews on the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve the uptake of cancer screening.
METHODS: The review methodology was guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Ovid MEDLINE, PyscINFO, and Embase were searched from inception to May 2021. The eligible criteria included reviews that focused on studies of interventions that used mobile phone devices to promote and deliver cancer screening and described the effectiveness or implementation of mHealth intervention outcomes. Key data fields such as study aims, types of cancer, mHealth formats, and outcomes were extracted, and the data were analyzed to address the objective of the review.
RESULTS: Our initial search identified 1981 titles, of which 12 (0.61%) reviews met the inclusion criteria (systematic reviews: n=6, 50%; scoping reviews: n=4, 33%; rapid reviews: n=1, 8%; narrative reviews: n=1, 8%). Most (57/67, 85%) of the interventions targeted breast and cervical cancer awareness and screening uptake. The most commonly used mHealth technologies for increasing cancer screening uptake were SMS text messages and telephone calls. Overall, mHealth interventions increased knowledge about screening and had high acceptance among participants. The likelihood of achieving improved uptake-related outcomes increased when interventions used >1 mode of communication (telephone reminders, physical invitation letters, and educational pamphlets) together with mHealth.
CONCLUSIONS: mHealth interventions increase cancer screening uptake, although multiple modes used in combination seem to be more effective.