METHODS: The English version of the PACIC questionnaire is a 20-item scale measuring five key components, which are patient activation, decision support, goal setting, problem solving and follow-up care. The PACIC underwent forward - backward translation and cross cultural adaptation process to produce the PACIC-Malay version (PACIC-M). Reliability was tested using internal consistencies and test-retest reliability analyses, while construct validity was tested using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
RESULTS: The content of PACIC-M and the original version were conceptually equivalent. Overall, the internal consistency by Cronbach's α was .94 and the intra-class correlation coefficient was .93. One item was deleted (item 1) when the factor loading was
METHODS: We included studies which used conversation analysis or discourse analysis to study recorded interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. We followed an aggregative thematic synthesis approach. This involved line-by-line coding of the results and discussion sections of included studies, and the inductive development and hierarchical grouping of descriptive themes. Top-level themes were organised to reflect their conversational positioning.
RESULTS: Of the 17,562 studies identified through systematic searching, ten papers were included. Analysis resulted in 10 top-level descriptive themes grouped into three domains: initiating; carrying out; and closing health behaviour change talk. Of three methods of initiation, two facilitated further discussion, and one was associated with outright resistance. Of two methods of conducting behaviour change talk, one was associated with only minimal patient responses. One way of closing was identified, and patients did not seem to respond to this positively. Results demonstrated a series of specific conversational practices which clinicians use when talking about HBC, and how patients respond to these. Our results largely complemented clinical guidelines, providing further detail on how they can best be delivered in practice. However, one recommended practice - linking a patient's health concerns and their health behaviours - was shown to receive variable responses and to often generate resistance displays.
CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour change talk is smoothly initiated, conducted, and terminated by clinicians and this rarely causes interactional difficulty. However, initiating conversations by linking a person's current health concern with their health behaviour can lead to resistance to advice, while other strategies such as capitalising on patient initiated discussions, or collaborating through question-answer sequences, may be well received.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additional articles were located through cross-checking of the references list and bibliography citations of the included studies and previous review papers. We included intervention studies with controlled or baseline comparison groups that were conducted in primary care practices or the community, targeted at adult populations (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials with controlled groups and pre- and post-intervention studies). The interventions were targeted either at individuals, communities, health care professionals or the health-care system. The main outcome of interest was the relative risk (RR) of screening uptake rates due to the intervention.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias for randomization was low to medium in the randomized controlled trials, except for one, and high in the non-randomized trials. Two analyses were performed; optimistic (using the highest effect sizes) and pessimistic (using the lowest effect sizes). Overall, interventions were shown to increase the uptake of screening for CVD risk factors (RR 1.443; 95% CI 1.264 to 1.648 for pessimistic analysis and RR 1.680; 95% CI 1.420 to 1.988 for optimistic analysis). Effective interventions that increased screening participation included: use of physician reminders (RR ranged between 1.392; 95% CI 1.192 to 1.625, and 1.471; 95% CI 1.304 to 1.660), use of dedicated personnel (RR ranged between 1.510; 95% CI 1.014 to 2.247, and 2.536; 95% CI 1.297 to 4.960) and provision of financial incentives for screening (RR 1.462; 95% CI 1.068 to 2.000). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of CVD risk factors screening uptake was not associated with study design, types of population nor types of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician reminders, using dedicated personnel to deliver screening, and provision of financial incentives were found to be effective in increasing CVD risk factors screening uptake.
METHODS: The index prescriptions were those that when the annual blood tests were reviewed. Prescriptions of medication were verified, compared to the preceding prescriptions and classified as 1) no change, 2) stepping up and 3) stepping down. The treatment targets were HbA1c
METHODS: The EBMQ was developed based on a qualitative study, literature review and an expert panel. Face and content validity was verified by the expert panel and piloted among 10 participants. Primary care physicians with or without EBM training who could understand English were recruited from December 2015 to January 2016. The EBMQ was administered at baseline and two weeks later. A higher score indicates better knowledge, better practice of EBM and less barriers towards the implementation of EBM. We hypothesized that the EBMQ would have three domains: knowledge, practice and barriers.
RESULTS: The final version of the EBMQ consists of 80 items: 62 items were measured on a nominal scale, 22 items were measured on a 5 point Likert-scale. Flesch reading ease was 61.2. A total of 343 participants were approached; of whom 320 agreed to participate (response rate = 93.2%). Factor analysis revealed that the EBMQ had eight domains after 13 items were removed: "EBM websites", "evidence-based journals", "types of studies", "terms related to EBM", "practice", "access", "patient preferences" and "support". Cronbach alpha for the overall EBMQ was 0.909, whilst the Cronbach alpha for the individual domain ranged from 0.657-0.940. The EBMQ was able to discriminate between doctors with and without EBM training for 24 out of 42 items. At test-retest, kappa values ranged from 0.155 to 0.620.
CONCLUSIONS: The EBMQ was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the knowledge, practice and barriers towards the implementation of EBM among primary care physicians in Malaysia.
METHODS: This phenomenological qualitative study focussed on patients' experiences in relation to EnPHC interventions. Participants were purposely selected from a group of patients who attended the eight intervention primary healthcare clinics in Johor and Selangor regularly for treatment. Data collection was conducted between April to July 2018. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at average an hour per interview for four to five patients per clinic. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: A total of 35 patients participated. Analysis revealed five main themes about patient experiences receiving the EnPHC intervention. These are: (1) health assessment in disease progress monitoring, (2) patient-doctor relationship and continuity of care, (3) professionalism in service delivery, (4) ensuring compliance in achieving health targets and (5) communication skills. Each theme represents an important aspect of the service, how it should be delivered within the patient expectations and how it can improve patient's health through their lens.
CONCLUSION: Even though patients were not able to exactly identify the EnPHC intervention components implemented, they are able to describe the process changes that occurred; enabling them to improve their healthcare status. Engagement is necessary to better inform patients of the EnPHC intervention, its purpose, mechanisms, changes and importance for healthcare. It would reduce resistance and increase awareness amongst patients at the clinic.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.
RESULTS: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.