AIM: This review aimed to explore the effects of psychoeducational interventions on improving outcome measures for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline was used in this systematic review. Two reviewers were involved in screening articles for inclusion and in the data extraction process. The selected studies were assessed for quality using the 'Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT)' checklist. Out of the 441 records identified, 11 papers were considered for full review (from 2000 to 2018).
RESULTS: The psychoeducational interventions showed a consistent improvement in many outcome measures. Most of the reviewed studies focused on outpatients and the method of delivering the psychoeducational interventions was mostly in lecture format.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review of randomized controlled trial studies emphasizes the positive impact of psychoeducational interventions for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia concerning various outcome measures. The findings of this review have important implications for both nursing practice and research, as the information presented can be used by the administrators and stakeholders of mental health facilities to increase their understanding and awareness of the importance of integrating psychoeducational interventions in the routine care of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.
METHODS: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation.
RESULTS: There are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient' programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan.
CONCLUSION: In summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective telephonic structured interview-based study was carried out on all orthopaedic patients taking DAMA during a one-year period from July 2016 to June 2017. They were telephonically interviewed with a structured questionnaire. Hospital and ED records were analysed for demographic as well as temporal characteristics.
Results: A total of 68 orthopaedic patients walked out of casualty against medical advice out of a total 775 (8.77%) orthopaedic patients presenting during the period as against 6.4% overall rate of DAMA for all specialties. The main reasons for DAMA were financial unaffordability of treatment (36.7%), preference for another orthopaedic surgeon (22%) and on advice of the patient's General Practitioner (16.1%).
Conclusion: Unaffordability of treatment is a significant cause for walkouts amongst orthopaedic patients. Private hospitals need to recognise and implement processes by which these patients can be treated at affordable costs and with coverage either by medical insurance or robust charity programs. Patient education and awareness are important to encourage them to have insurance coverage.