METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on all primary care doctors working in government health clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from October 2016 to November 2016. A self-reported questionnaire was used, which included questions on demographic information, knowledge of in-flight medicine, and the attitude and confidence of primary care doctors in managing in-flight medical emergencies.
RESULTS: 182 doctors completed the questionnaire (92.9% response rate). The mean knowledge score was 8.9 out of a maximum score of 20. Only 11.5% of doctors felt confident managing in-flight medical emergencies. The majority (69.2%) would assist in an in-flight medical emergency, but the readiness to assist was reduced if someone else was already helping or if they were not familiar with the emergency. Total knowledge score was positively associated with confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Only one in ten primary care doctors in this study felt confident managing in-flight medical emergencies. A higher total knowledge score of in-flight medical emergencies was positively associated with greater confidence in managing them. Educational programmes to address this gap in knowledge may be useful to improve doctors' confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies.
SETTING: A formal questionnaire was anonymously completed by physicians from different countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific. The survey sought responses relating to general familiarity, awareness of management guidelines, identification (clinical characteristics and lipid profile), prevalence and inheritance, extent of elevation in risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and practice on screening and treatment.
PARTICIPANTS: Practising community physicians from Australia, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Vietnam and Taiwan were recruited to complete the questionnaire, with the UK as the international benchmark.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: An assessment and comparison of the knowledge, awareness and preferences of FH among physicians in 10 different countries/regions.
RESULTS: 1078 physicians completed the questionnaire from the Asia-Pacific region; only 34% considered themselves to be familiar with FH. 72% correctly described FH and 65% identified the typical lipid profile, with a higher proportion of physicians from Japan and China selecting the correct FH definition and lipid profile compared with those from Vietnam and Philippines. However, less than half of the physician were aware of national or international management guidelines; this was significantly worse than physicians from the UK (35% vs 61%, p<0.001). Knowledge of prevalence (24%), inheritability (41%) and CVD risk (9%) of FH were also suboptimal. The majority of the physicians considered laboratory interpretative commenting as being useful (81%) and statin therapy as an appropriate cholesterol-lowering therapy (89%) for FH management.
CONCLUSIONS: The study identified important gaps, which are readily addressable, in the awareness and knowledge of FH among physicians in the region. Implementation of country-specific guidelines and extensive work in FH education and awareness programmes are imperative to improve the care of FH in the region.
METHODS: We used data from The National Medical Care Survey (NMCS), a national cross-sectional survey of patients' visits to primary care clinics in Malaysia. A weighted total of 22,832 encounters of patients aged ≥65 years were analysed. Polypharmacy was defined as concomitant use of five medications and above. Multilevel logistic regression was performed to examine the association of polypharmacy with patient, prescriber and practice characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 20.3% of the older primary care attenders experienced polypharmacy (26.7%% in public and 11.0% in private practice). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of polypharmacy were 6.37 times greater in public practices. Polypharmacy was associated with patients of female gender (OR 1.49), primary education level (OR 1.61) and multimorbidity (OR 14.21). The variation in rate of polypharmacy was mainly found at prescriber level.
CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy is common among older persons visiting primary care practices. Given the possible adverse outcomes, interventions to reduce the burden of polypharmacy are best to be directed at individual prescribers.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with doctors and patients in Malaysia. We used convenience sampling to recruit patients until data saturation. Eighteen patients and eighteen doctors consented and were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked by the interviewers. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: The themes were similar for both the patients and doctors. Three main themes emerged: knowledge and awareness of COPD, psychosocial and physical impact of COPD and the utility of self-management. Knowledge about COPD was generally poor. Patients were not familiar with the term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD. The word 'asthma' was used synonymously with COPD by both patients and doctors. Most patients experienced difficulties in their psychosocial and physical functions such as breathlessness, fear and helplessness. Most patients were not confident in self-managing their illness and prefer a more passive role with doctors directing their care.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study showed that knowledge of COPD is generally poor. There was mislabelling of COPD as asthma by both patients and physicians. This could have resulted in the lack of understanding of treatment options, outcomes, and prognosis of COPD. The misconception that cough due to COPD was contagious, and breathlessness that resulted from COPD, had important physical and psychosocial impact, and could lead to social isolation. Most patients and physicians did not favour self-management approaches, suggesting innovations based on self-management may be of limited benefit.