METHODS: In-depth online semi-structured individual interviews were conducted among 25 community pharmacists working in Malaysia. All interviews were conducted between March 2022 and May 2022 and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and then analysed by thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis yielded seven major themes, 1-familiarity with drive-thru community pharmacy service during COVID-19, 2-willingness toward this service during COVID-19, 3-perceived benefits toward drive-thru community pharmacy service during COVID-19, 4-perceived disadvantages toward this service, 5-barriers toward drive-thru community pharmacy service, 6-factors affecting the preference toward this service, and 7-facilitators to drive-thru community pharmacy service. Enhancing social distancing and preventing the spread of COVID-19 were the major perceived benefits of this service during COVID-19 as reported by participants.
CONCLUSION: Overall, community pharmacists reported positive attitudes toward drive-thru community pharmacy service during COVID-19. However, concerns about poor communication between the pharmacist and the patient, limited counselling, and dispensing errors were acknowledged. These concerns would need to be addressed to improve the provision of drive-thru community pharmacy service.
METHODOLOGY: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Medline Plus, and CENTRAL were searched for relevant articles on type 1 and type 2 diabetes illness costs. The inquiry returned 873 2011-2023 academic articles. The study included 42 papers after an abstract evaluation of 547 papers.
RESULTS: Most articles originated in Asia and Europe, primarily on type 2 diabetes. The annual cost per patient ranged from USD87 to USD9,581. Prevalence-based cost estimates ranged from less than USD470 to more than USD3475, whereas annual pharmaceutical prices ranged from USD40 to more than USD450, with insulin exhibiting the greatest disparity. Care for complications was generally costly, although costs varied significantly by country and problem type.
DISCUSSION: This study revealed substantial heterogeneity in diabetes treatment costs; some could be reduced by improving data collection, analysis, and reporting procedures. Diabetes is an expensive disease to treat in low- and middle-income countries, and attaining Universal Health Coverage should be a priority for the global health community.
METHODOLOGY: The study used a prospective follow-up mix methodology approach with six-month follow-ups of patients. The participants included in the study population were those with chronic kidney disease grade 4 and kidney failure. Pre-validated and translated questionnaires (Kidney Disease Quality of Life-Short Form, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Urdu Version, and Morisky Lewis Greens Adherence Scale) and assessment tools were used to collect data.
RESULTS: This study recruited 314 patients after an initial assessment based on inclusion criteria. The mean age of the study population was 54.64 ± 15.33 years. There was a 47.6% male and a 52.4% female population. Hypertension and diabetes mellitus remained the most predominant comorbid condition, affecting 64.2% and 74.6% of the population, respectively. The study suggested a significant (p < 0.05) deterioration in the mental health composite score with worsening laboratory variables, particularly hematological and iron studies. Demographic variables significantly impact medication adherence. HRQOL was found to be deteriorating with a significant impact on mental health compared to physical health.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients on maintenance dialysis for kidney failure have a significant burden of physical and mental symptoms, depression, and low HRQOL. Given the substantial and well-known declines in physical and psychological well-being among kidney failure patients receiving hemodialysis, the findings of this research imply that these areas related to health should receive special attention in the growing and expanding population of kidney failure patients.
METHODS: To find qualitative and descriptive quantitative studies, that reported on the attitudes, awareness, or perceptions of the general public and pharmacists toward the practice of any extended community pharmacy service and drive-thru pharmacy services in a community setting and conducted from March 2012 to March 2022. Researchers used databases such as Embase, Medline PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The reviewers extracted data independently using the PRISMA checklist.
RESULTS: There were 55 studies found according to the inclusion criteria. Various extended pharmacy services (EPS) and drive-thru pharmacy services were noted in the community setting. Pharmaceutical care services and healthcare promotion services were the noticeable performed extended services. There were positive perceptions and attitudes toward extended and drive-thru pharmacy services among pharmacists and the public. However, some factors, such as lack of time and shortage of staff, affect the practice of those services.
CONCLUSION: Understanding the major concerns toward the provision of extended and drive-thru community pharmacy services and improving pharmacists' skills through more training programs to provide such services efficiently. In the future, more reviews for EPS practice barriers are recommended to faceup all concerns and find standardized guidelines by stakeholders and organizations for efficient EPS practices.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administrated, web-based survey (Google form) among the public in Malaysia between May and June 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. Associations between the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants and the use of drive-thru community pharmacy services were assessed using a chi-square test. Regression analyses were carried out to determine whether the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants were associated with perceptions towards drive-thru community pharmacy services.
RESULTS: A total of 565 (70.6%) of the general public completed the survey instrument. The median age of study participants was 40.0 (IQR = 36.0) and about half of them were males (50.6%, n = 286). Although 18.6% (n = 105) of the participants reported the presence of DTCPS in their cities, only 9.0% (n = 51) reported having used this service. Most of the participants were supportive to establish drive-thru services at community pharmacies in the country. Most of the believed advantages among participants were that DTCPS are helpful during COVID-19 and quarantine time 48.0% (n = 271) by enhancing social distancing and reducing the spread of the COVID-19 virus 48.5% (n = 274). Among sociodemographic factors, non-Malaysian nationality (p<0.001), and age above 55 years (p = 0.01) were found to negatively affect participants' perceptions towards drive-thru community pharmacy services.
CONCLUSION: This study showed positive awareness, attitudes, and perceptions toward drive-thru community pharmacy services during COVID-19 in Malaysia among the public. The participants believed that those services were helpful during COVID-19 to enhance social distancing and to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, 16 healthcare professionals and 5 policymakers from surgical and oncology departments at public healthcare centres in Malaysia. Semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach. Nvivo software was used to manage and analyse the data.
RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from the study: healthcare provider-patient communication, workforce availability, cultural and belief systems, goals of care and paternalism versus autonomy. Other strategies proposed to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision-making were training of healthcare professionals and empowering nurses to manage patients' psychosocial issues.
CONCLUSION: This study found that practising shared decision-making in the public health sector remains challenging when managing patients with metastatic breast cancer. The utilization of decision-making tools, patient empowerment and healthcare provider training may help address the system and healthcare provider-patient barriers identified in this study.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the study design, recruitment and analysis.
Materials and methods: A prevalence-based, bottom-up cost analysis study was conducted in three tertiary hospitals in Malaysia. Chronic HF patients who received treatment between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018 were included in the study. The direct cost of HF was estimated from the patients' healthcare resource utilisation throughout a one-year follow-up period extracted from patients' medical records. The total costs consisted of outpatient, hospitalisation, medications, laboratory tests and procedure costs, categorised according to ejection fraction (EF) and the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification.
Results: A total of 329 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation of total cost per HF patient per-year (PPPY) was USD 1,971 ± USD 1,255, of which inpatient cost accounted for 74.7% of the total cost. Medication costs (42.0%) and procedure cost (40.8%) contributed to the largest proportion of outpatient and inpatient costs. HF patients with preserved EF had the highest mean total cost of PPPY, at USD 2,410 ± USD 1,226. The mean cost PPPY of NYHA class II was USD 2,044 ± USD 1,528, the highest among all the functional classes. Patients with underlying coronary artery disease had the highest mean total cost, at USD 2,438 ± USD 1,456, compared to other comorbidities. HF patients receiving angiotensin-receptor neprilysin-inhibitor (ARNi) had significantly higher total cost of HF PPPY in comparison to patients without ARNi consumption (USD 2,439 vs. USD 1,933, p < 0.001). Hospitalisation, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary angiogram, and comorbidities were the cost predictors of HF.
Conclusion: Inpatient cost was the main driver of healthcare cost for HF. Efficient strategies for preventing HF-related hospitalisation and improving HF management may potentially reduce the healthcare cost for HF treatment in Malaysia.
RESULTS: An overall of 1839 diabetes patients participated in the study. The results have shown that direct and indirect costs are positively associated with the participants' socio-demographic characteristics, except for household income and educational status. The annual total cost of diabetes care was USD 740.1, amongst which the share of the direct cost was USD 646.7, and the indirect cost was USD 93.65. Most direct costs comprised medicine (USD 274.5) and hospitalization (USD 319.7). In contrast, the productivity loss of the patients had the highest contribution to the indirect cost (USD 81.36).
CONCLUSION: This study showed that direct costs significantly contributed to diabetes's overall cost in Pakistan and overall diabetes management estimated to be 1.67% (USD 24.42 billion) of the country's total gross domestic product. The expense of medications and hospitalization mostly drove the direct cost. Additionally, patients' loss of productivity contributed significantly to the indirect cost. It is high time for healthcare policymakers to address this huge healthcare burden. It is time to develop a thorough diabetes management plan to be implemented nationwide.
METHODS: A Markov model based on previously published CE models of HCV was adapted for the Malaysian public healthcare payer perspective, based on good modeling practices. Treatment attributes included efficacy, regimen duration, and EQ-5D treatment-related health utility. Transitional probabilities and health state health utilities were derived from previous studies. Costs were derived from Malaysian data sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties around key variables.
RESULTS: Based on the analysis, patients treated with the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV showed less frequent progression to compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths when compared with standard care (ie, PegIFN+RBV or no treatment). At a price of MYR 1846/day, the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective over PegIFN+RBV and yields better outcomes in terms of life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a higher cost, which is still well below the implied willingness to pay threshold of MYR 384 503/QALY.
CONCLUSION: The OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective for treatment naïve, treatment experienced, cirrhotic, and noncirrhotic GT1 chronic HCV patients in Malaysia.
METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial design was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the culturally-specific DSME(S) program from the perspective of health care providers. In the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost per patient and clinical outcomes over 6 months were compared between the intervention and control group. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as cost per unit improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein- cholesterol (HDL-C), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and body weight.
RESULTS: The effectiveness of most outcomes was better in the intervention group compared with the control group. The ICER per unit improvement in HbA1c, SBP, DBP, serum TC, and TG levels was <1 of the minimum CET compared with the control group, thus meeting the definition of being highly cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: The currently developed DSME(S) was cost effective method to improve glycemic control, blood pressure, TC, and TG for T2DM patients in Iraq.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify related studies, published up to August 2021, on PubMed, Cochrane, ProQuest, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol were referenced during the reporting process. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 criteria were used to assess the requirements of the selected studies. Articles with original data and full texts were included in the review. Non-low- to middle-income countries and non-English articles were excluded.
RESULTS: This review identified 12 suitable studies, wherein 6 investigated the cost-effectiveness of clinical breast examinations (CBEs), whereas 10 looked into mammogram (MMG) with or without CBE. In 2 studies, the cost-effectiveness of raising awareness through mass media and the use of ultrasounds combined with CBE were investigated. Although cost-effective, MMG incurs greater costs and requires more skill to be performed. MMG screenings before the age of 40 years were not cost-effective. The limitations of this review include variability in the methodological approaches of its selected studies. Most of the chosen studies met the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that adopting an age- and risk-based MMG screening approach could be viable in countries with limited resources. Future cost-effectiveness analysis research should include a section on patient and stakeholder engagement with the study's results.
METHODS: A partitioned survival model was established using the TreeAge 2019 software to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. The model includes three states, namely progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Clinical data were derived from three randomized controlled studies involving patients with advanced HCC who received the following treatment: sorafenib and lenvatinib (NCT01761266); atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03434379); and sintilimab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03794440). Cost and clinical preference data were obtained from the literature and interviews with clinicians.
RESULTS: All compared with sorafenib therapy, lenvatinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$188,625.25 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; sintilimab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$75,150.32 per QALY gained; and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$144,513.71 per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with sorafenib achieved a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of US$36,600/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the medical insurance reimbursement ratio and drug prices.
CONCLUSIONS: In this economic evaluation, therapy with lenvatinib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab generated incremental QALYs compared with sorafenib; however, these regimens were not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$36,600 per QALY. Therefore, some patients may achieve preferred economic outcomes from these three therapies by tailoring the regimen based on individual patient factors.
METHODS: This qualitative interview study was conducted among final year pharmacy students. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling until data saturation (i.e., when additional interviews didn't lead to any new themes). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and evaluated by thematic analysis.
KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-two final year pharmacy students were interviewed. Fifteen of them preferred the government sector as their choice training, three chose the community sector, two preferred private hospitals and another two preferred the pharmaceutical industry. The majority of the students gave positive feedback towards the liberalization of PRP training sites. Most of them chose clinical pharmacy as their preferred training site despite knowing of the saturation issue in government hospitals. This was mainly due to the opportunity to gain clinical experience and knowledge from the government sector. A small number of students preferred the pharmaceutical industry based on their personal interests and opportunities for career advancement.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students generally chose their PRP training site based on personal interest, future career advancement and working environment. A better understanding of career pathways and opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry by the students is required.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. The developed tool consists of 28 items to evaluate believed advantages toward drive-thru community pharmacy services, believed disadvantages toward drive-thru community pharmacy services, differences between drive-thru community pharmacy services and instore drug refill services, perceptions toward drive-thru community pharmacy services and feelings regarding how the introduction of drive-thru pharmacy services may affect the image of community pharmacists. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the factors of the developed tool, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated the model fitness.
RESULTS: The EFA identified five elements and 25 items for the tool, and through CFA results, the observed model of the 25 items structure of the tool was verified as an excellent fit for the data [χ2 (265, N = 565) = 819.586, p < 0.001, IFI = 0.931, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.064]. The results of the CFA indicated a good model fit between the observed model and the proposed model. The internal reliability of the entire tool and each factor was very satisfactory as Cronbach's Alpha for the whole structured tool was 0.843 and for each factor was as follows, first factor (believed advantages) = 0.909, second factor (believed disadvantages) = 0.921, third factor (differences between drive-thru and instore refill) = 0.647, fourth factor (perceptions) = 0.926, and fifth factor (feelings) = 0.681.
CONCLUSION: The developed and validated tool would be valuable for assessing the public's perceptions of the drive-thru community pharmacy service during COVID-19 and future pandemics.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was done on 3 databases, namely PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, to identify original cost-of-illness studies that only evaluate the economic burden of AD up to August 2022. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 criteria. Cost articles without specifying etiology of AD or those in non-English were excluded.
RESULTS: Twelve of 5536 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total annual cost of AD per capita ranged from US $468.28 in mild AD to US $171 283.80 in severe AD. The cost of care raised nonlinearly with disease severity. Indirect caregiving cost represented the main contributor to societal cost in community-dwelling patients. When special caregiving accommodation was opted in daily care, it results in cost shifting from indirect cost to direct nonmedical cost. Formal caregiving accommodation caused increase in direct cost up to 67.3% of overall economic burden of the disease.
CONCLUSIONS: AD exerts a huge economic burden on patients and caregivers. Overall rise of each cost component could be anticipated with disease deterioration. Choice of special caregiving accommodation could reduce caregiver's productivity loss but increase the direct nonmedical expenditure of the disease from societal perspective.