METHODS: An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were >50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated >30 patients with asthma per month, of which >60% were aged >12 years.
RESULTS: REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.
CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.
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: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers across public health clinics in Malaysia. All family medicine specialists, medical officers, nurses and assistant medical officers involved in the screening program for adult men were invited to answer a 51-item questionnaire via email or WhatsApp. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants' socio-demographic information, current screening practices, barriers and facilitators to using the screening tool, and views on the content and format of the screening tool.
Results: A total of 231 healthcare providers from 129 health clinics participated in this survey. Among them, 37.44% perceived the implementation of the screening program as a "top-down decision." Although 37.44% found the screening tool for adult men "useful," some felt that it was "time consuming" to fill out (38.2%) and "lengthy" (28.3%). In addition, 'adult men refuse to answer' (24.1%) was cited as the most common patient-related barrier.
Conclusions: This study provided useful insights into the challenges encountered by the public healthcare providers when implementing a national screening program for men. The screening tool for adult men should be revised to make it more user-friendly. Further studies should explore the reasons why men were reluctant to participate in health screenings, thus enhancing the implementation of screening programs in primary care.
METHODS: All final-year students registered for 2013/2014 across 11 dental schools in Malaysia were invited to participate in a self-administered questionnaire (n = 530). The instrument explored short- and long-term career expectations, influences and students' background using a mix of open- and closed-ended questions. The chi-square test was used for comparison according to student and school characteristics.
RESULTS: Three-hundred and fifty-six (83%) students, across eight schools, completed the questionnaire. In the short term, undertaking specialist training (46%) was the most commonly cited career goal, and achieving financial stability (79%) was the greatest influence. In the long term, 59% planned to specialise (with a significant difference found according to ethnic group), and 67% considered working full-time, with men significantly more likely to do so than women (P = 0.036). More Malay students (90%) ranked childcare commitments as an important influence on the number of sessions they planned to work per week compared with Chinese students (75%) and Others (74%; P = 0.001). Work-life balance (95%) and high income/financial security (95%) were the main influences on respondents' long-term goals.
CONCLUSION: There was a high level of interest in specialisation and a desire to achieve financial stability and work-life balance in the group of dental students who responded to the survey. Long-term career expectations varied according to student but not according to school characteristics.
Approach: Undergraduate students perform procedures of straightforward and moderate complexity, and later assisted the clinical specialists during procedures of advanced complexity. students document these cases with clinical photographs and case notes to make presentations that were uploaded in the faculty's online management system to be reviewed by the entire cohort. student groups presented their cases with their entire cohort. an independent assessor assessed the groups for their organization of the case, information collected on the topic, critical analysis of the case, defending the diagnosis and treatment plan, teamwork and presentation skills.
Evaluation: Students reported improvement in the depth of knowledge on particular diseases/procedures, a better understanding of holistic management of advanced cases, improved rapport, team spirit and communication among group members. they also reported difficulties in recruiting and completing the procedures within eight weeks.
Discussion: Apart from improving the clinical experience of undergraduate students, the module provides an opportunity for the development of teamwork, communication skills, and ethical presentations among students, which are invaluable to the faculty to meet its programme learning outcomes. case sharing provides a platform for holistic learning and serves as an alternative learning method aside from didactic lectures and routine clinical supervision.