MATERIALS AND METHODS: Public Health Clinic Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PHC-PSQ) towards pharmacy services was developed using exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's α. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 400 patients visiting the pharmacy in three randomly selected public health clinics recruited via systematic random sampling. Data was collected using a set of questionnaire including PHC-PSQ. Factors associated with patient satisfaction was analysed using multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: Final PHC-PSQ consisted of three domains (administrative competency, technical competency and convenience of location) and 22 items with 69.9% total variance explained. Cronbach's α for total items was 0.96. Total mean score for patient satisfaction was 7.56 (SD 1.32). Older age and higher education were associated with lower patient satisfaction mean score. Patients who had visited the pharmacy more than once in the past three months, perceived to be in better health status and had a more correct general knowledge of pharmacists expressed higher patient satisfaction mean score.
CONCLUSIONS: PHC-PSQ is a newly developedtool to measure patient satisfaction towards pharmacy services in public health clinics in Malaysia. Patient satisfaction was relatively high. Age, education, frequency of visit, self-perceived health status and general knowledge of pharmacists were factors significantly associated with patient satisfaction.
METHODOLOGY: Randomly, we collected 436 oropharyngeal swabs from healthy children aged 2-4 years in 30 registered childcare centres in Kuala Lumpur (August 2018-May 2019). Informed consent and written questionnaires were obtained from parents. H. influenzae was identified by standard microbiological methods. Univariable analysis was carried out to describe variables associated with colonization. All variables with p
METHODS: This was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8-10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.