METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Thailand with 130 stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, pharmacy experts, educators, health care providers, patients, students and parents) from August-October 2013. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three main themes were derived from the findings: 1. influences on curriculum change (e.g., the needs of pharmacists to provide better patient care, the US-Thai consortium for the development of pharmacy education); 2. perceived benefits (e.g., improve pharmacy competencies from generalists to specialists, ready to work after graduation, providing a high quality of patient care); and 3. concerns (e.g., the higher costs of study for a longer period of time, the mismatch between the pharmacy graduates' competency and the job market's needs, insufficient preceptors and training sites, lack of practical experience of the faculty members and issues related to the separate licenses that are necessary due to the difference in the graduates' specialties).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to highlight the issues surrounding the transition to the 6-year PharmD programme in Thailand, which was initiated due to the need for higher levels of competency among the nation's pharmacists. The transition was influenced by many factors. Many participants perceived benefits from the new pharmacy curriculum. However, some participants were concerned about this transition. Although most of the respondents accepted the need to go forward to the 6-year PharmD programme, designing an effective curriculum, providing a sufficient number of qualified PharmD preceptors, determining certain competencies of pharmacists in different practices and monitoring the quality of pharmacy education still need to be addressed during this transitional stage of pharmacy education in Thailand.
METHOD: Structured interviews with community pharmacists. Informed consent was obtained and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content analysis of themes on awareness of ADR reporting, reporting activities, attitudes and views on patient reporting.
RESULTS: All pharmacists claimed to have some knowledge of a reporting system but only one had submitted a report directly to the regulatory authority. Despite the low level of reporting activities, all participants agreed that it was part of their professional obligation to report an ADR. Most participants were not aware of the direct patient reporting scheme and were skeptical about its success. Lack of awareness and patients' limited knowledge about their medications were viewed as barriers to patient reporting. Local attitudinal issues including pharmacists' attitude towards ADR reporting were described as possible contributing factors.
CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists have an important role in reporting ADRs. Many Malaysian patients are still perceived to be ill-informed of their medications, an important determinant to the success of patient reporting. There is a need for further training about ADRs and ADR reporting for health professionals and further education for patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia.
SETTING: An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a "collaborator" or a "non-collaborator". Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) of the PPCI for physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. "Collaborators" had significantly higher scores compared to "non-collaborators" (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test-retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752.
CONCLUSION: The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors' views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.
AIMS: To evaluate the evidence relating to attitudes towards PEG feeding and to determine potential barriers to the acceptance of PEG tube feeding.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. The search for the studies was performed without restrictions by using the terms "PEG", "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "enteral feeding", "attitude", "perception" and "opinion". Qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Quality of studies was assessed with the Alberta checklists.
RESULTS: From 981 articles, 17 articles were included in the final analysis. Twelve qualitative and four quantitative studies were considered of good quality. Seven of the 14 studies reported positive attitudes towards PEG. Three major themes were identified in terms of barriers to PEG feeding: lack of choice (poor knowledge, inadequate competency and skills, insufficient time given, not enough information given, lack of guidelines or protocol, resource constraints), confronting mortality (choosing life or death, risk of procedure) and weighing alternatives (adapting lifestyle, family influences, attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs), fear and anxiety).
CONCLUSIONS: Only half of the reviewed studies reported positive perceptions towards PEG feeding. The themes identified in our systematic review will guide the development of interventions to alter the current attitudes and barriers towards PEG tube feeding.
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.
METHODS: Fifth year dental students at JUST were invited to fill out a paper based self-administered questionnaire. Data was collected on students` demographics, their future career plans and the impact of social and economic changes on such plans, their interest in postgraduate studies and the specialty of choice in addition to the influence of a group of factors on that choice. Data was also collected on the value of non-academic workshops, guidance regarding career plans, participants` preferred pattern of work (full-time versus part-time) and retirement plans. Students were categorized according to their nationalities. Pearson's chi squared test, one way ANOVA and post hoc tests were used to measure statistical significance between measured variables and backgrounds of participants. The level of significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 227 students completed the survey (response rate = 84%). 47% of the participants were Jordanians, 27% were Malaysians, 11% were from Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar), 10% were from conflict zones in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen) and 5% comprised students from other nationalities. Significant differences were found between students from different backgrounds in their funding sources (Chi square = 132, P
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This cross-sectional study comprised 252 patients visiting HUSM. Patients were selected using the convenience sampling method. The PGQ (Bahasa Melayu version) had three main factors: during your visit; your care provider and overall assessment. Data were analyzed using the structural equation modeling.
FINDINGS: The exploratory factor analysis resulted in item reduction from 21 to 17, which contained four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Meanwhile, confirmatory factor analysis results showed that data fitted the model: χ2/df at 1.764, comparative fit index at 0.952, Tucker-Lewis index at 0.941 and root mean square error of approximation at 0.073. The average variance extracted value for the four factors was greater than 0.50, which indicated that PGQ convergent validity was met. Overall, PGQ produced good reliability with composite reliability score equals to 0.966. Four factors were reclassified as "during your registration," "hospital staff attitude," "doctor's attitude" and "overall assessment."
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Patient satisfaction is an important and frequently used indicator for measuring healthcare quality; hence, a validated and reliable instrument is important for measuring patient satisfaction that leads to healthcare service quality assessment.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Validated PGQ provides some useful information for doctors, medical assistants, nurses and staff in the emergency department to help them become more prominent and efficient in their role as healthcare providers.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Validated PGQ will help healthcare providers to deliver the best and exceptional care toward emergency patient, and thus improve their quality of work life. The findings in this study can be used as a guide or as baseline data for further research in this area.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The PQG (Bahasa Melayu version) was confirmed as a reliable and valid instrument for measuring patient satisfaction. This research is the first PGQ validation study in Southeast Asia, specifically focusing on Malaysian respondents.
METHODOLOGY: This is a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge and attitude on pain assessment and management among medical officers at QEH. A universal sampling technique was used, to represent medical officers from major clinical departments. The Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (KASRP) questionnaire was used for this study.
RESULTS: A total of 278 questionnaires were distributed to medical officers. The study sample consisted of 125 females (44.9%), and 153 males (55.1%). The age group of the participants ranged from 25 to 41 years old. A 116 respondents scored less than 60% on the knowledge of pain (41.7%). These findings show there was a deficit in their knowledge and attitude about pain. There was also a difference of scores between genders, where the male doctors performed better than the female doctors. There was a difference between scores among doctors from different departments. The highest mean score was from the department of Anaesthesia (80.2%). There was also a difference regarding pain knowledge based on the years of working as a doctor, where the highest passing rate was from doctors working for more than five years.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that there is a lack of knowledge and attitude on pain assessment and management among QEH medical officers who responded to this study. This will support the plan on a more aggressive and continuous education programme to improve pain assessment and management among doctors in QEH.