PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted online in-depth interviews among seven house officers using an interview guide developed based on a literature review. The transcripts were analyzed. Major themes were identified. A 33-item questionnaire was developed, and the main and sub-themes were identified as motivators for specialist career choice. An online survey was done among 185 house officers. Content validation of motivators for specialist choice was done using exploratory factor analysis. First, second and third choices for a specialist career were identified. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were done to determine the socio-demographic factors and motivators associated with the first choice.
RESULTS: HOs perceived that specialist training opportunities provide a wide range of clinical competencies through well-structured, comprehensive training programs under existing specialist training pathways. Main challenges were limited local specialist training opportunities and hurdles for 'on-contract' HO to pursue specialist training. Motivators for first-choice specialty were related to 'work schedule', 'patient care characteristics', 'specialty characteristics', 'personal factors', 'past work experience', 'training factors', and 'career prospects.' House officers' first choices were specialties related to medicine (40.5%), surgery (31.5%), primary care (14.6%), and acute care (13.5%). On multivariate analysis, "younger age", "health professional in the family", "work schedule and personal factors", "career prospects" and "specialty characteristics" were associated with the first choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical disciplines were the most preferred disciplines and their motivators varied by individual discipline. Overall work experiences and career prospects were the most important motivators for the first-choice specialty. The information about motivational factors is helpful to develop policies to encourage more doctors to choose specialties with a shortage of doctors and to provide career specialty guidance.
Methods: Specialists from allergology, dermatology, and otorhinolaryngology were surveyed on practical considerations and key decision points when treating patients with allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria.
Results: Clinicians felt the need for additional tools for diagnosis of these diseases and a single drug with all preferred features of an antihistamine. Challenges in treatment include lack of clinician and patient awareness and compliance, financial constraints, and treatment for special patient populations such as those with concomitant disease. Selection of optimal second-generation antihistamines depends on many factors, particularly drug safety and efficacy, impact on psychomotor abilities, and sedation. Country-specific considerations include drug availability and cost-effectiveness. Survey results reveal bilastine as a preferred choice due to its high efficacy and safety, suitability for special patient populations, and the lack of sedative effects.
Conclusions: Compliance to the international guidelines is present among allergists, dermatologists and otorhinolaryngologists; however, this is lower amongst general practitioners (GPs). To increase awareness, allergy education programs targeted at GPs and patients may be beneficial. Updates to the existing international guidelines are suggested in APAC to reflect appropriate management for different patient profiles and varying symptoms of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A technology survey was completed by professionals (n = 36) attending O&M workshops in Malaysia. A revised survey was completed online by O&M specialists (n = 31) primarily in Australia. Qualitative data about technology use came from conferences, workshops and interviews with O&M professionals. Descriptive statistics were analysed together with free-text data.
RESULTS: Limited awareness of apps used by clients, unaffordability of devices, and inadequate technology training discouraged many O&M professionals from employing existing technologies in client programmes or for broader professional purposes. Professionals needed to learn smartphone accessibility features and travel-related apps, and ways to use technology during O&M client programmes, initial professional training, ongoing professional development and research.
CONCLUSIONS: Smartphones are now integral to travel with low vision or blindness and early-adopter O&M clients are the travel tech-experts. O&M professionals need better initial training and then regular upskilling in mainstream O&M technologies to expand clients' travel choices. COVID-19 has created an imperative for technology laggards to upskill for O&M tele-practice. O&M technology could support comprehensive O&M specialist training and practice in Malaysia, to better serve O&M clients with complex needs.Implications for rehabilitationMost orientation and mobility (O&M) clients are travelling with a smartphone, so O&M specialists need to be abreast of mainstream technologies, accessibility features and apps used by clients for orientation, mobility, visual efficiency and social engagement.O&M specialists who are technology laggards need human-guided support to develop confidence in using travel technologies, and O&M clients are the experts. COVID-19 has created an imperative to learn skills for O&M tele-practice.Affordability is a significant barrier to O&M professionals and clients accessing specialist travel technologies in Malaysia, and to O&M professionals upgrading technology in Australia.Comprehensive training for O&M specialists is needed in Malaysia to meet the travel needs of clients with low vision or blindness who also have physical, cognitive, sensory or mental health complications.
METHODS: The HomeSat subscale of the Dutch SASC-19 questionnaire (11 items) underwent back-to-back translation to produce a Malay language version. Content validation was done by Family Medicine Specialists involved in community post-stroke care. Community social support services in the original questionnaire were substituted with equivalent local services to ensure contextual relevance. Internal consistency reliability was determined using Cronbach alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was done to validate the factor structure of the Malay version of the questionnaire (SASC10-My™). The SASC10-My™ was then tested on 175 post-stroke patients who were recruited at ten public primary care healthcentres across Peninsular Malaysia, in a trial-within a trial study.
RESULTS: One item from the original Dutch SASC19 (HomeSat) was dropped. Internal consistency for remaining 10 items was high (Cronbach alpha 0.830). Exploratory factor analysis showed the SASC10-My™ had 2 factors: discharge transition and social support services after discharge. The mean total score for SASC10-My™ was 10.74 (SD 7.33). Overall, only 18.2% were satisfied with outpatient stroke care services (SASC10-My™ score ≥ 20). Detailed analysis revealed only 10.9% of respondents were satisfied with discharge transition services, while only 40.9% were satisfied with support services after discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: The SASC10-My™ questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to measure caregiver or patient satisfaction with outpatient stroke care services in the Malaysian healthcare setting. Studies linking discharge protocol patterns and satisfaction with outpatient stroke care services should be conducted to improve care delivery and longer-term outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: No.: ACTRN12616001322426 (Registration Date: 21st September 2016.