METHODS: A multi-national cross-sectional survey was performed among SEANERN countries. A 1-5 Likert scale was used to measure eight components of knowledge, ability, and skill of PHC providers. Descriptive statistics were employed, and radar charts were used to depict the levels of the three dimensions (knowledge, skill and ability) and eight components.
RESULTS: Totally, 606 valid questionnaires from PHC providers were returned from seven countries of SEANERN (China, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia), with a responsive rate of 97.6% (606/621). For the three dimensions the ranges of total mean scores were distributed as follows: knowledge dimension: 2.78~3.11; skill dimension: 2.66~3.16; ability dimension: 2.67~3.06. Furthermore, radar charts revealed that the transition of PHC provider's knowledge into skill and from skill into ability decreased gradually. Their competencies in four areas, including safe water and sanitation, nutritional promotion, endemic diseases prevention, and essential provision of drugs, were especially low.
CONCLUSIONS: The general capacity perceived by PHC providers themselves seems relatively low and imbalanced. To address the problem, SEANERN, through the collaboration of the members, can facilitate the appropriate education and training of PHC providers by developing feasible, practical and culturally appropriate training plans.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from July to October 2016. All the 140 doctors in 12 public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur were invited to participate in this study. However, only 122 doctors (females, 82.8%) completed the self-administered questionnaire that assessed their demography, clinical experience, SCI practice and its barriers, self-efficacy in delivering and knowledge on smoking and SCI.
RESULTS: Only 42.6% of the doctors had good SCI practice. Almost all doctors assessed the smoking status of their patients (98.4%) and advised them to quit (98.4%). However, lesser proportions of the doctors followed up the practice of patients (50.0%), taught smokers on various methods of quit smoking (46.70%) and discussed about the barriers and resources to quit prior to the quit date (27.9%). Less than one-fourth of the doctors were confident in providing SCI. Although 69.7% had previous training in SCI, many felt they had inadequate knowledge (56.6%) and skills (47.5%). Only 11.5% of doctors thought their previous training was enough. Having higher level of knowledge on smoking and SCI was significantly associated with good SCI practice [adjusted Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Intervals): 1.21 (1.02, 1.43), p=0.026].
CONCLUSION: The SCI practiced by the primary care doctors in this study was sub-standard, particularly in assisting smokers to quit and arranging follow up. Low self-efficacy in providing SCI was also common. These inadequacies may be due to poor knowledge and skills, which needs to be improved through effective clinical training.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilised the QUALICOPC study data on primary care performance, which was conducted in 2011-2013 (QUALICOPC in Europe Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and 2015-2016 (Malaysia). A standardised questionnaire was completed by primary care practitioners from participating countries. Multilevel regression analysis and composite scores were constructed to compare the performance of primary care on four process dimensions: accessibility, comprehensiveness, continuity of care and coordination.
RESULTS: The high-income countries with strong primary care performed better in comprehensiveness, continuity and coordination but poorer in accessibility to services compared with upper-middle-income countries. Among the upper-middle-income countries, Malaysia scored the best in comprehensiveness and coordination. None of the studied countries were having consistent performance over all indicators either in their respective best or worst primary care services delivery dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in primary care services delivery across and within the studied countries. The findings indicate room for quality improvement activities to strengthen primary healthcare services. This includes addressing current healthcare challenges in response to the population health needs which are essential for more integrated and efficient primary care services delivery.
METHODS: The EBMQ was developed based on a qualitative study, literature review and an expert panel. Face and content validity was verified by the expert panel and piloted among 10 participants. Primary care physicians with or without EBM training who could understand English were recruited from December 2015 to January 2016. The EBMQ was administered at baseline and two weeks later. A higher score indicates better knowledge, better practice of EBM and less barriers towards the implementation of EBM. We hypothesized that the EBMQ would have three domains: knowledge, practice and barriers.
RESULTS: The final version of the EBMQ consists of 80 items: 62 items were measured on a nominal scale, 22 items were measured on a 5 point Likert-scale. Flesch reading ease was 61.2. A total of 343 participants were approached; of whom 320 agreed to participate (response rate = 93.2%). Factor analysis revealed that the EBMQ had eight domains after 13 items were removed: "EBM websites", "evidence-based journals", "types of studies", "terms related to EBM", "practice", "access", "patient preferences" and "support". Cronbach alpha for the overall EBMQ was 0.909, whilst the Cronbach alpha for the individual domain ranged from 0.657-0.940. The EBMQ was able to discriminate between doctors with and without EBM training for 24 out of 42 items. At test-retest, kappa values ranged from 0.155 to 0.620.
CONCLUSIONS: The EBMQ was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the knowledge, practice and barriers towards the implementation of EBM among primary care physicians in Malaysia.
METHODS: A mixed method design was used. Fourth-year medical students participated in a consultation/liaison psychiatry service to two government-operated primary care clinics. Each student attended two half-day consultations to the clinics during the psychiatry clinical clerkship. Students joined in discussions with primary care clinicians, performed supervised clinical assessments, and administered a depression screening instrument. The learning experience was evaluated through four focus groups, each with 9-10 participants, held throughout the academic year. An end-of-year, anonymous, online questionnaire survey was administered to the entire class. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts was performed and quantitative statistics were calculated (Stata version 13).
RESULTS: Focus group themes included the following: (a) active learning opportunities in primary care psychiatry consultation had perceived added educational value, (b) students benefited from contact with patients with previously undiagnosed common mental disorders, and (c) students' primary care experience raised their awareness of societal and professional responsibilities. Of the class of 113 students, 93 (82%) responded to the questionnaire. The survey responses reflected the qualitative themes, with 79 respondents (85%) stating that the learning experience met or exceeded their expectations.
CONCLUSIONS: Academic psychiatry has been criticized for its overreliance on secondary care settings in undergraduate clinical teaching. Our findings suggest that supervised clinical placements in primary care are feasible and provide added educational value as a routine component of the undergraduate psychiatry clinical clerkship.
AIM: We aimed to test validity and reliability of Malay language translations of GERDQ and QOLRAD in a primary care setting.
METHODS: The questionnaires were first translated into the Malay language (GERDQ-M and QOLRAD-M). Patients from primary care clinics with suspected GERD were recruited to complete GERDQ-M, QOLRAD-M, and Malay-translated 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36 or SF-36-M), and underwent endoscopy and 24-h pH-impedance test.
RESULTS: A total of 104 (mean age 47.1 years, women 51.9%) participants were enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity for GERDQ-M cut-off score ≥8 were 90.2 and 77.4%, respectively. Based on this cut-off score, 54.7% had a high probability of GERD diagnosis. GERD-M score ≥8 vs. < 8 was associated with erosive esophagitis (p < 0.001), hiatus hernia (p = 0.03), greater DeMeester score (p = 0.001), and Zerbib scores for acid refluxes (p < 0.001) but not non-acid refluxes (p = 0.1). Mean total scores of QOLRAD-M and SF-36-M were correlated (r = 0.74, p < 0.001). GERDQ-M ≥8, erosive esophagitis, and DeMeester ≥14.72 were associated with impaired QOLRAD-M in all domains (all p < 0.02) but this was not seen with SF-36.
CONCLUSIONS: GERDQ-M and QOLRAD-M are valid and reliable tools applicable in a primary care setting.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour towards both acute and preventive physical and psychosocial health concerns by sex, age and type of primary care setting (as a proxy for affordability of healthcare).
METHODS: A total of 3979 patients from 221 public and 239 private clinics in Malaysia were interviewed between June 2015 and February 2016 using a patient experience survey questionnaire from the Quality and Cost of Primary Care cross-sectional study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for the complex survey design was used.
RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, more women than men perceived that most people would see their general practitioners for commonly consulted acute and preventive physical and some psychosocial health concerns such as stomach pain (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-2.21), sprained ankle (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.56), anxiety (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55), domestic violence (AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.62) and relationship problems (AOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51). There were no significant differences in perceived healthcare seeking behaviour by age groups except for the removal of a wart (AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.76). Patients who visited the public clinics had generally higher perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour for both acute and preventive physical and psychosocial health concerns compared to those who went to private clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that sex and healthcare affordability differences were present in perceived community healthcare seeking behaviour towards primary care services. Also perceived healthcare seeking behaviour were consistently lower for psychosocial health concerns compared to physical health concerns.
STUDY DESIGN: A review of articles was performed.
METHODS: A search strategy was used by using electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for published studies and reference list of published studies. The articles were exported to a bibliographic database for further screening process. Two reviewers worked independently to screen results and extract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved and confirmed by the consensus of all authors.
RESULTS: There were three screening approaches for detecting MCI and dementia - screening by a healthcare provider, screening by a self-administered questionnaire and caretaker informant screening. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common and preferable tool for MCI screening (sensitivity [Sn]: 81-97%; specificity [Sp]: 60-86%), whereas Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE) was the preferable tool for dementia screening (Sn: 79-100%; Sp: 86%).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that there are three screening approaches for detecting early dementia and MCI at primary health care. ACE and MoCA are recommended tools for screening of dementia and MCI, respectively.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted at a university primary care clinic. Patients aged 18 to 80 years old with MetS were recruited. Socio-demographic characteristic, clinical characteristics and information on TCM use and its pattern were recorded in a proforma. Patient's experience of chronic disease conventional care was measured using PACIC-M questionnaire. The comparison of PACIC-M mean score between TCM users and non-users was measured using independent t-test. The factors associated with TCM use were determined by simple logistic regression (SLogR), followed by multiple logistic regression (MLogR).
RESULTS: Out of 394 participants, 381 (96.7%) were included in the final analysis. Of the 381 participants, 255 (66.9%) were TCM users (95% CI 62.7, 71.7). Only 36.9% of users disclosed about TCM use to their health care providers (HCP). The overall mean PACIC-M score was 2.91 (SD ± 0.04). TCM users had significantly higher mean PACIC-M score compared to non-users (2.98 ± 0.74 vs 2.75 ± 0.72, p = 0.01). The independent factors associated with TCM use were being female (Adj. OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.55, 4.06), having high education level (Adj. OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.37, 3.41) and having high overall PACIC-M mean score (Adj. OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10, 2.03).
CONCLUSION: TCM use was highly prevalent in this primary care clinic. However, the disclosure rate of TCM use to HCP was low. Females, those with high education and high PACIC-M mean score were more likely to use TCM. Further research should explore the reasons for their TCM use, despite having good experience in conventional chronic disease care.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a universal sample of 307 health professionals comprising of nurses, medical assistants, medical residents, medical officers and physicians across medical and casualty departments in a Malaysian public hospital. The self-administered questionnaire consisted of items on socio-demographics, WhatsApp usage characteristics and the type of communication events during clinical practice.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents (68.4%) perceived WhatsApp as beneficial during clinical practice. In multivariate analysis, perceived benefits was significantly higher amongst the clinical management group (aOR=2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6, p=0.001), those using WhatsApp for >12months (aOR=1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, p=0.047), those receiving response ≤15min to a new communication (aOR=1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, p=0.017), and frequent information giving events (aOR=2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.8, p=0.016).
CONCLUSION: Perceived benefits of WhatsApp use in clinical practice was significantly associated with usage characteristics and type of communication events. This study lays the foundation for quality improvement innovations in patient management delivered through m-Health technology.