Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.
Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.
Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.
Methods: Electronic and hand searches of English literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Science Direct were conducted, and the authors were contacted when necessary. Observational studies (population-based, hospital/clinic-based, and cross-sectional) were included. For study appraisal and synthesis, duplicate selection was performed independently by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using a modified Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist, with main outcome of prevalence of canine agenesis.
Results: The global population prevalence of canine agenesis was 0.30% (0.0-4.7%), highest in Asia (0.54%), followed by Africa (0.33%), and the least in Europe and South America (0.19% in both continents). Canine agenesis was more common in the maxilla (88.57%), followed by both maxilla and mandible (8.57%), and the least common was mandible-only presentation (2.86%). The condition was more common in females (female:male ratio = 1.23), except in Asia (female:male ratio = 0.88) and Africa (female:male ratio = 1). In Asia, unilateral agenesis was almost twice as prevalent as bilateral, but in Europe, the bilateral form was more common.
Conclusions: The overall prevalence of canine agenesis is 0.30%, with the highest prevalence in Asia, followed by Africa, Europe, and South America. The condition is more common in the maxilla than the mandible, and in females than males (except in Asia and Africa), with unilateral agenesis being more common in Asia and the bilateral form showing a greater prevalence in Europe.
OBJECTIVES: To generate consensus among dermatologists on the content of an outpatient discharge checklist, to create one and to seek clinicians' opinions on its usefulness.
METHODS: Seventeen consultant dermatologists from five National Health Service trusts completed a 72-item Delphi questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate each item for importance in contributing to a high-quality discharge decision. Eighteen clinicians completed a questionnaire evaluating checklist use.
RESULTS: Consensus was determined when ≥ 75% of consultants rated an item 'very important' or 'important'. There was strong inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0·958) and fair inter-rater agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0·269). There were 26 consensus-agreed items, condensed to 13 that formed the 'traffic-light' checklist. These are disease-related issues (diagnostic certainty, disease severity, treatment appropriateness, patient manageable in primary care, patient's benefit from follow-up), patient empowerment issues (understanding diagnosis and treatment outcome, having a clear plan, treatment side-effects, ability to self-manage) and addressing concerns (patient concerns, easy reaccess to secondary care, whether patient and clinician are happy with the decision). Twelve clinicians (67%) found the checklist useful, 11 (61%) wanted to use it in future, 10 (56%) thought it was useful for training and three (17%) said it helped their thinking. Clinicians suggested its use for auditing and for training clinicians and administrators.
CONCLUSIONS: Items were identified to create an outpatient discharge information checklist, which demonstrated high acceptability.
METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.
RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.