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: A cross sectional study was conducted among 2120 cancer patients in Peninsular Malaysia, between April 2016 to January 2017. All cancer patients aged 18 years old and above, Malaysian citizens and undergoing cancer treatment at government hospitals were approached to participate in this study and requested to complete a set of validated questionnaires. Inferential statistical tests such as t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to determine the differences between demographic variables, physical effects, clinical factors, psychological effects and self-esteem with the quality of life of cancer patients. Predictor(s) of quality of life were determined by using Multivariate linear regression models.
RESULT: A total 1620 out of 2120 cancer patients participated in this study, giving a response rate of 92%. The majority of cancer patients were female 922 (56.9%), Malays 1031 (63.6%), Muslim 1031 (63.6%), received chemotherapy treatment 1483 (91.5%). Overall, 1138 (70.2%) of the patients had depression and 1500 (92.6%) had anxiety. Statistically significant associations were found between QOL and clinical factors, physical side effects of cancer, psychological effects and self-esteem (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The development of PFME intervention was guided by the Medical Research Council Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Intervention (MRC Framework). This involved four phases: identification of current research evidence, expert opinion, validation via focus group discussions with physiotherapists and pregnant women, and piloting the intervention using a single group pre-post design among 30 pregnant women at Maternity Hospital Kuala Lumpur to assess the feasibility of the intervention by evaluating changes in knowledge and attitude. The qualitative approach was used to analyse the first three phases, while non-parametric methods were used to analyse the pilot prepost test results.
RESULTS: Based on research evidence and guidelines found during the literature review, a PFME intervention was developed using a new paradigm incorporating two theories, the Health Belief Model and Motivational Interviewing that have been shown to be important in continence promotion and exercise adherence. The contribution of the panel of experts in refining the intervention to meet the local context, endorses the achievement of the intervention's content validity. While, the focus group discussion with pregnant women and physiotherapists revealed the face-validity of the intervention. The findings of the pilot pre-testing showed that PFME knowledge (p<0.001) and attitude (p=0.011) improved significantly immediately following the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidently, this is a pioneer study that illustrates the development of a Malaysian context-adapting PFME intervention on the basis of recommended steps using the MRC Framework. Incorporating a theory-based and rigorous validation approach into the development of the PFME intervention brought novel perspectives to the intervention. Given the promising preliminary results of the pre-testing pilot study, the PFME intervention could be implemented in the planned randomised control trial to validate the robustness of the results.