OBJECTIVE: To measure factors associated with mHealth adoption among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among PCPs. The usage of mHealth apps by the PCPs has divided into the use of mHealth apps to support PCPs' clinical work and recommendation of mHealth apps for patient's use. Factors associated with mHealth adoption were analysed using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Among 217 PCPs in the study, 77.0% used mHealth apps frequently for medical references, 78.3% medical calculation and 30.9% interacting with electronic health records (EHRs). Only 22.1% of PCPs frequently recommended mHealth apps to patients for tracking health information, 22.1% patient education and 14.3% use as a medical device. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions were associated with mHealth use for medical references. Family medicine trainees, working in a government practice and performance expectancy were the facilitators for the use of mHealth apps for medical calculation. Internet connectivity, performance expectancy and use by colleagues were associated with the use of mHealth with EHR. Performance expectancy was associated with mHealth apps' recommendation to patients to track health information and provide patient education.
CONCLUSIONS: PCPs often used mHealth apps to support their clinical work but seldom recommended mHealth apps to their patients. Training for PCPs is needed on the appraisal and knowledge of the mHealth apps for patient use.
METHODS: This study used a descriptive qualitative study design. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide developed based on the theoretical domains framework. Nine in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with patients with type 2 diabetes who have been advised to start insulin or were currently using insulin and those who had been seeking diabetes treatment in the clinic for more than 1 year. Interviews were conducted after the participants were familiarized with the PDA. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) trust in the physician (patients preferred physicians to other health care providers in delivering the insulin PDA to them as they trusted physicians more when it comes to making decisions such as starting insulin), (b) physician's attitude (patients were more likely to trust a physician who is friendly and sympathetic hence would be more willing to use the insulin PDA), (c) physician's communication style (patients were more willing to use the insulin PDA if the physicians would take time and guide them in the PDA use), (d) conducive environment (patients preferred to read the PDA at home), and (e) cost (patients would not be willing to pay to use the insulin PDA unless they needed it).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients want physicians to play a major role in the implementation of the insulin PDA; physicians' communication style and commitment may influence implementation outcomes. Health care authorities need to create a conducive environment and provide patients with free access to PDA to promote effective implementation.
AIMS: We assessed outcomes of a pilot long-term stroke care clinic which combined secondary prevention and rehabilitation at community level.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective observational study of stroke patients treated between 2008 and 2010 at a primary care teaching facility.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Analysis of patients was done at initial contact and at 1-year post treatment. Clinical outcomes included stroke risk factor(s) control, depression according to Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), and level of independence using Barthel Index (BI).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Differences in means between baseline and post treatment were compared using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were analyzed. Their mean age was 62.9 [standard deviation (SD) 10.9] years, mean stroke episodes were 1.30 (SD 0.5). The median interval between acute stroke and first contact with the clinic 4.0 (interquartile range 9.0) months. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.7 mmHg (t = 2.79, P = 0.007), while mean diastolic blood pressure remained unchanged at 80mmHg (z = 1.87, P = 0.06). Neurorehabilitation treatment was given to 84.6% of the patients. Median BI increased from 81 (range: 2-100) to 90.5 (range: 27-100) (Z = 2.34, P = 0.01). Median PHQ9 scores decreased from 4.0 (range: 0-22) to 3.0 (range: 0-19) though the change was not significant (Z= -0.744, P = 0.457).
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-driven long-term stroke care services yield favorable outcomes for blood pressure control and functional level.
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.
STUDY DESIGN: A review of articles was performed.
METHODS: A search strategy was used by using electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for published studies and reference list of published studies. The articles were exported to a bibliographic database for further screening process. Two reviewers worked independently to screen results and extract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved and confirmed by the consensus of all authors.
RESULTS: There were three screening approaches for detecting MCI and dementia - screening by a healthcare provider, screening by a self-administered questionnaire and caretaker informant screening. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common and preferable tool for MCI screening (sensitivity [Sn]: 81-97%; specificity [Sp]: 60-86%), whereas Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE) was the preferable tool for dementia screening (Sn: 79-100%; Sp: 86%).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that there are three screening approaches for detecting early dementia and MCI at primary health care. ACE and MoCA are recommended tools for screening of dementia and MCI, respectively.
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.