SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The package known as "Preemie Mom: A Guide for You" was designed based on Stufflebeam's model and has four phases: (1) content evaluation from available sources of information, (2) input evaluation based on mothers' need related to premature baby care, (3) process evaluation for package designing and content drafting, and (4) product evaluation to determine its feasibility. The contents were extracted and collated for validation by consulting various specialists in related fields. A final draft was drawn based on comments given by experts. Comments from the mothers were taken for formatting, visual appearance, and content flow for easy understanding and usage.
RESULTS: All ten existing articles and eight relevant documents were gathered and critically appraised. The package was designed based on 11 main components related to the care of premature baby after discharge. The content validation was accepted at a minimum score of 0.85 for the item-level content validity index analysis. Both experts and mothers were agreed that the package is easy to use and well accepted as a guide after discharge. The agreement rate by the mothers was at 93.33% and greater for the front page, writing style, structure, presentation, and motives of the package.
CONCLUSIONS: "Preemie Mom: A Guide for You" is a validated health educational package and ready to be used to meet the needs of the mother for premature baby care at home.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey using selfadministered questionnaires was conducted among all specialists working in government specialist hospitals in the northern states of Malaysia.
RESULTS: Out of 733 questionnaires distributed, 467 were returned giving a response rate of 63.7%. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents believed that research benefits patients while 93.3% think research helps in their professional development. However, 34.8% think that under their present working conditions, it is unlikely they will participate in research. The major barriers identified were lack of funds for research (81%); lack access to expertise, software or statistical analysis (78.4%); interference with daily work schedule (75.1%) and inconsistent manpower in their department (74.2%). There are three barriers with statistically significant difference between hospitals with CRC compared to hospitals without CRC; lack of funds, mentors and access to expertise, software or statistical analysis. The demographic factors, attitudes and barriers contributing to involvement in research also investigated. The main facilitators for the conduct of research are potential to benefit patients and potential for professional development.
CONCLUSION: Taking note of the findings, the Ministry of Health can implement appropriate strategies to improve specialist participation in research.
METHODS: The anonymised online survey included 27 items about paediatric rheumatology (PR) clinical care and training programmes. The survey was piloted and then distributed via Survey-Monkey™ between March and July 2019. It was sent to existing group lists of physicians and allied health professionals (AHPs), who were involved in the care pathways and management of children with rheumatic diseases in SE ASIA/ASIAPAC.
RESULTS: Of 340 participants from 14 countries, 261 participants had been involved in PR care. The majority of the participants were general paediatricians. The main reported barriers to providing specialised multidisciplinary service were the absence or inadequacy of the provision of specialists and AHPs in addition to financial issues. Access to medicines was variable and financial constraints cited as the major obstacle to accessing biological drugs within clinical settings. The lack of a critical mass of specialist paediatric rheumatologists was the main perceived barrier to PR training.
CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple challenges to PR services in SE ASIA/ASIAPAC countries. There is need for more specialist multidisciplinary services and greater access to medicines and biological therapies. The lack of specialist paediatric rheumatologists is the main barrier for greater access to PR training.
METHODS: This study consisted of 3 steps; the formulation of ASMaQ draft, content validation and construct validity. A total of 110 questions were drafted with 5-point Likert scale answers. From the list, 31 were selected and subsequently tested on 158 participants. The results were analysed and validated using exploratory factor analysis on SPSS. Components were extracted and questions with low factor loading were removed. The internal consistency was then measured with Cronbach's alpha.
RESULTS: Following analysis, 3 components were extracted and named as general stroke knowledge, hyperacute stroke care and advanced stroke management. Two items were deleted leaving 29 out of 31 questions for the final validated ASMaQ. Internal consistency showed high reliability with Cronbach's alpha of 0.82. Our respondents scored a total cumulative mean of 113.62 marks or 66.6%. A sub analysis by occupation showed that medical assistants scored the lowest in the group with a score of 57% whilst specialists including neurologists scored the highest at 79.4%.
CONCLUSION: The ASMaQ is a newly developed and validated questionnaire consisting of 29 questions testing the respondents' acute stroke management knowledge.