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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: No.: ACTRN12616001322426 (Registration Date: 21st September 2016.
METHODS: Published literature on multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) were studied and five sessions of expert group discussions were conducted to build the MAST framework and to review the evidence. The attributes identified and selected for analysis were efficacy (clinical efficacy, clinical endpoints), safety (drug interactions, serious side effects and documentation), drug applicability (drug strength/formulation, indications, dose frequency, side effects, food-drug interactions, and dose adjustments), and cost. The average weights assigned by the members for efficacy, safety, drug applicability and cost were 32.6%, 26.2%, 24.1%, and 17.1%, respectively. The utility values of the attributes were scored based on the published evidence or/and agreements during the group discussions. The attribute scores were added up to provide the total utility score.
RESULTS: Using the MAST, the six statins under review were successfully scored and ranked. Atorvastatin scored the highest total utility score (TUS) of 84.48, followed by simvastatin (83.11). Atorvastatin and simvastatin scored consistently high, even before drug costs were included. The low scores on the side effects for atorvastatin were compensated for by the higher scores on the clinical endpoints resulting in a higher TUS for atorvastatin. Fluvastatin recorded the lowest TUS.
CONCLUSION: The multiattribute scoring tool was successfully applied to organize decision variables in reviewing statins for the formulary. Based on the TUS, atorvastatin is recommended to remain in the formulary and be considered as first-line in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.
AIMS: We assessed outcomes of a pilot long-term stroke care clinic which combined secondary prevention and rehabilitation at community level.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A prospective observational study of stroke patients treated between 2008 and 2010 at a primary care teaching facility.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Analysis of patients was done at initial contact and at 1-year post treatment. Clinical outcomes included stroke risk factor(s) control, depression according to Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), and level of independence using Barthel Index (BI).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Differences in means between baseline and post treatment were compared using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon-signed rank test. Significance level was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were analyzed. Their mean age was 62.9 [standard deviation (SD) 10.9] years, mean stroke episodes were 1.30 (SD 0.5). The median interval between acute stroke and first contact with the clinic 4.0 (interquartile range 9.0) months. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.7 mmHg (t = 2.79, P = 0.007), while mean diastolic blood pressure remained unchanged at 80mmHg (z = 1.87, P = 0.06). Neurorehabilitation treatment was given to 84.6% of the patients. Median BI increased from 81 (range: 2-100) to 90.5 (range: 27-100) (Z = 2.34, P = 0.01). Median PHQ9 scores decreased from 4.0 (range: 0-22) to 3.0 (range: 0-19) though the change was not significant (Z= -0.744, P = 0.457).
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care-driven long-term stroke care services yield favorable outcomes for blood pressure control and functional level.
METHODS: A pragmatic healthcentre-based cluster randomised controlled trial-within trial on 151 post stroke patients from 10 public primary care facilities in Peninsular Malaysia was conducted to evaluate QALY of patients managed with iCaPPS© (n = 86) vs conventional care (n = 65) for 6 months. Costs from societal perspective were calculated, using combination of top down and activity-based costing methods. The 5-level EQ5D (EQ-5D-5 L) was used to calculate health state utility scores. Cost per QALY and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were determined. Differences within groups were determined using Mann-Whitney tests.
RESULTS: Total costs for 6 months treatment with iCaPPS© was MYR790.34, while conventional care cost MYR527.22. Median QALY for iCaPPS© was 0.55 (0,1.65) compared to conventional care 0.32 (0, 0.73) (z = - 0.21, p = 0.84). Cost per QALY for iCaPPS© was MYR1436.98, conventional care was MYR1647.56. The ICER was MYR1144.00, equivalent to 3.7% of per capita GDP (2012 prices).
CONCLUSIONS: Management of post stroke patients in the community using iCaPPS© costs less per QALY compared to current conventional care and is very cost effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration number ACTRN12616001322426. Registered 21 September 2016. (Retrospectively registered).
METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.
RESULTS: The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
METHODS: All patients admitted to UKMMC in 2011 were recruited in this study. Combination of Step-down and Bottom-up costing methodology has been used in this study. The drug and supplies cost; the cost of staff; the overhead cost; and the equipment cost make up the four components of pharmacy. Direct costing approach has been employed to calculate Drugs and supplies cost from electronic-prescription system; and the inpatient pharmacy staff cost, while the overhead cost and the pharmacy equipments cost have been calculated indirectly from MY-DRG data base. The total pharmacy cost was obtained by summing the four pharmacy components' cost per each MY-DRG. The Pharmacy service weight of a MY-DRG was estimated by dividing the average pharmacy cost of the investigated MY-DRG on the average of a specified MY-DRG (which usually the average pharmacy cost of all MY-DRGs).
RESULTS: Drugs and supplies were the main component (86.0%) of pharmacy cost compared o overhead cost centers (7.3%), staff cost (6.5%) and pharmacy equipments (0.2%) respectively. Out of 789 inpatient MY-DRGs case-mix groups, 450 (57.0%) groups were utilized by the UKMMC. Pharmacy service weight has been calculated for each of these 450 MY-DRGs groups. MY-DRG case-mix group of Lymphoma & Chronic Leukemia group with severity level three (C-4-11-III) has the highest pharmacy service weight of 11.8 equivalents to average pharmacy cost of RM 5383.90. While the MY-DRG case-mix group for Circumcision with severity level one (V-1-15-I) has the lowest pharmacy service weight of 0.04 equivalents to average pharmacy cost of RM 17.83.
CONCLUSION: A mixed approach which is based partly on top-down and partly on bottom up costing methodology has been recruited to develop MY-DRG case-mix pharmacy service weight for 450 groups utilized by the UKMMC in 2011.