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.

METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.

RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: This study is part of a larger national study on the perception of the Malaysian public healthcare professionals on FMSs.

PARTICIPANTS: PHCPs from three categories of health facilities, namely hospitals, health clinics and health offices.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analysis of written comments of respondents' expectation of FMSs.

RESULTS: The participants' response rate was 58% (780/1345) with an almost equal proportion from each public healthcare facility. We identified 21 subthemes for the 623 expectation comments. The six emerging themes are (1) need for more FMSs, (2) clinical roles and functions of FMSs, (3) administrative roles of FMSs, (4) contribution to community and public health, (5) attributes improvement and (6) research and audits. FMSs were expected to give attention to clinical duty. Delivering this responsibility with competence included having the latest medical knowledge in their own and others' medical disciplines, practising evidence-based medicine in prehospital and posthospital care, better supervision of staff and doctors under their care, fostering effective teamwork, communicating more often with hospital specialists and making appropriate referral. Expectations ranged from definite and strong for more FMSs at the health clinics to low expectation for FMSs' involvement in research; to mal-expectation on FMSs' involvement in community and public health programmes.

CONCLUSIONS: There were some remarkable differences in expectations on FMSs from the three different PHCPs. These ranged from being clinically competent and administratively available for patients and staff at the health clinics, to mal-expectations on FMSs to engage in public health affairs. Relevant parties, including FMSs themselves, could take appropriate self-improvement initiatives to enhance public practice of family medicine and patient care.

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.