METHODS: The search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work.
RESULTS: Of 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent.
CONCLUSION: The current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the level of eHealth literacy in patients attending a primary care clinic in Malaysia and its associated factors.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted in an urban primary care clinic. We used a systematic random sampling method to select patients aged 18 years and above who attended the clinic. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was used to measure eHealth literacy.
RESULTS: A total of 381 participants were included. The mean eHEALS was 24.4 ± 7.6. The eHEALS statements related to skills in appraising OHI were scored lower than statements related to looking for online resources. Higher education level of attending upper secondary school (AOR 2.53, 95% CI 1.05-6.11), tertiary education (AOR 4.05, 95% CI 1.60-10.25), higher monthly household income of >US$470 (AOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.07-3.56), and those who had sought OHI in the past month (AOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.13-3.36) were associated with a higher eHealth literacy level.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found a low eHealth literacy level among primary care patients in Malaysia. While the patients were confident in searching for OHI, they lacked skills in appraising them. Our findings inform the interventions for improving eHealth literacy in LMICs, especially educating the public about OHI appraisal.
METHODS: A scoping review was carried out. The Google Play Store and Apple App Store were searched for mobile apps, using search terms derived from the UK Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) guideline on GPs' core capabilities and competencies. A manual search was also performed to identify additional apps.
RESULTS: The final analysis included 17 apps from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, and 21 apps identified by the manual search. mHealth apps were found to have the potential to replace GPs for tasks such as recording medical history and making diagnoses; performing some physical examinations; supporting clinical decision making and management; assisting in urgent, long-term, and disease-specific care; and health promotion. In contrast, mHealth apps were unable to perform medical procedures, appropriately utilise other professionals, and coordinate a team-based approach.
CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights the functions of mHealth apps that can potentially replace GP tasks. Future research should focus on assessing the performance and quality of mHealth apps in comparison with that of real doctors.
METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.
CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).
Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the ED of the largest tertiary medical center in Taiwan. Trends of adult, non-trauma patients who visited the ED during February-April 2019 were compared with those during February-April 2020. The number of visits, their dispositions, crowding parameters, and turnover rates were analyzed. The primary outcome was the change in ED attendance between the two periods. The secondary outcomes were changes in hospital admission rates, crowding parameters, and turnover rates.
Results: During the outbreak, there were decreased non-trauma ED visits by 33.45% (p < 0.001) and proportion of Taiwan Triage and Acuity Scale (TTAS) 3 patients (p=0.02), with increased admission rates by 4.7% (p < 0.001). Crowding parameters and turnover rate showed significant improvements.
Conclusion: Comparison of periods before and during the COVID-19 outbreak showed an obvious decline in adult, non-trauma ED visits. The reduction in TTAS 3 patient visits and the increased hospital admission rates provide references for future public-health policy-making to optimise emergency medical resource allocations globally.
METHODS: This study adopted a comparative case study design with a qualitative focus to identify similarities and differences of the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the insulin PDA across different sites. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare providers and 15 patients from five public health clinics under the Ministry of Health in Malaysia. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged which were: 1) time constraint; 2) PDA costs; 3) tailoring PDA use to patient profile; 4) patient decisional role; and 5) leadership and staff motivation. Based on the interviews and drawing on observations and interview reflection notes, time constraint emerged as the common prominent factor that cut across all the clinics, however, tailoring PDA use to patient profile; patient decisional role; leadership and staff motivation varied due to the distinct challenges faced by specific clinics. Among clinics from semi-urban areas with more patients from limited education and lower socio-economic status, patients' ability to comprehend the insulin PDA and their tendency to rely on their doctors and family to make health decisions were felt to be a prominent barrier to the insulin PDA implementation. Staff motivation appeared to be stronger in most of the clinics where specific time was allocated to diabetes team to attend to diabetes patients and this was felt could be a potential facilitator, however, a lack of leadership might affect the insulin PDA implementation even though a diabetes team is present.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found time constraint as a major potential barrier for PDA implementation and effective implementation of the insulin PDA across different public health clinics would depend on leadership and staff motivation and, the need to tailor PDA use to patient profile. To ensure successful implementation, implementers should avoid a 'one size fits all' approach when implementing health innovations.
METHODS: This study used a descriptive qualitative study design. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide developed based on the theoretical domains framework. Nine in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with patients with type 2 diabetes who have been advised to start insulin or were currently using insulin and those who had been seeking diabetes treatment in the clinic for more than 1 year. Interviews were conducted after the participants were familiarized with the PDA. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) trust in the physician (patients preferred physicians to other health care providers in delivering the insulin PDA to them as they trusted physicians more when it comes to making decisions such as starting insulin), (b) physician's attitude (patients were more likely to trust a physician who is friendly and sympathetic hence would be more willing to use the insulin PDA), (c) physician's communication style (patients were more willing to use the insulin PDA if the physicians would take time and guide them in the PDA use), (d) conducive environment (patients preferred to read the PDA at home), and (e) cost (patients would not be willing to pay to use the insulin PDA unless they needed it).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients want physicians to play a major role in the implementation of the insulin PDA; physicians' communication style and commitment may influence implementation outcomes. Health care authorities need to create a conducive environment and provide patients with free access to PDA to promote effective implementation.