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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NMRR ID: 08-12-1167.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additional articles were located through cross-checking of the references list and bibliography citations of the included studies and previous review papers. We included intervention studies with controlled or baseline comparison groups that were conducted in primary care practices or the community, targeted at adult populations (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials with controlled groups and pre- and post-intervention studies). The interventions were targeted either at individuals, communities, health care professionals or the health-care system. The main outcome of interest was the relative risk (RR) of screening uptake rates due to the intervention.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias for randomization was low to medium in the randomized controlled trials, except for one, and high in the non-randomized trials. Two analyses were performed; optimistic (using the highest effect sizes) and pessimistic (using the lowest effect sizes). Overall, interventions were shown to increase the uptake of screening for CVD risk factors (RR 1.443; 95% CI 1.264 to 1.648 for pessimistic analysis and RR 1.680; 95% CI 1.420 to 1.988 for optimistic analysis). Effective interventions that increased screening participation included: use of physician reminders (RR ranged between 1.392; 95% CI 1.192 to 1.625, and 1.471; 95% CI 1.304 to 1.660), use of dedicated personnel (RR ranged between 1.510; 95% CI 1.014 to 2.247, and 2.536; 95% CI 1.297 to 4.960) and provision of financial incentives for screening (RR 1.462; 95% CI 1.068 to 2.000). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of CVD risk factors screening uptake was not associated with study design, types of population nor types of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician reminders, using dedicated personnel to deliver screening, and provision of financial incentives were found to be effective in increasing CVD risk factors screening uptake.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed and a 13-item survey questionnaire was given to FMPs practicing in 12 different teaching hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. The questions were aimed at exploring the knowledge of FMP's regarding the association of obesity and periodontal disease and their attitude towards the association of obesity and periodontal disease. Chi-square and Spearman co-efficient were conducted to compare subgroups and correlate factors with the knowledge score of FMPs.
RESULTS: A total of 314 questionnaires were completed (response rate = 92%). Median age of participants was 41 years and 57% were females. Almost 61% of FMPs answered all the knowledge questions correctly and 64% reported moderate understanding of the association between periodontal health and obesity. Nearly 73% FMPs inquired from obese patients regarding the periodontal disease and more than half (58%) refer patients to a dentist for evaluation. More than half of FMPs perform periodontal disease screening. Nearly all FMPs considered informing obese patients regarding periodontal disease as one of their roles.
CONCLUSIONS: FMP's play an important role in the early diagnosis, prevention and treatment of periodontal conditions in obese patients. More than two thirds of FMPs showed good knowledge of the association of obesity and periodontal disease. The attitudes of FMPs towards assessing and referring obese patients at a risk of having periodontal disease were reassuring.