MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study conducted among doctors and pharmacists in Hospital Sultanah Nora Ismail, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia. Questionnaires were used in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 384 participants completed the questionnaires. The participants consisted of 323 doctors (84.1%) and 61 pharmacists (15.9%). The age group of the participants ranged between 25 till 55 years old. Ninety doctors (27.9%) and thirty-one pharmacists (51.0%) reported used sunscreen daily (p<0.001). This finding showed that there was a deficit in the practice of sun protection. Pharmacists scored a higher knowledge score of median 12 (IQR=3.0) while the doctors scored 11 (IQR=2.0). This study showed a significant association between ethnicity and skin cancer knowledge (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a lack of knowledge of sunscreen and skin cancer prevention among health care practitioners. This finding supports better medical education program on this topic.
METHODS: Novel LMIC radiotherapy demand and outcome models were created by adjusting previously developed models that used HIC cancer staging data. These models were applied to the cancer case mix (ie, the incidence of each different cancer) in each LMIC in the Asia-Pacific region to estimate the current and projected optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (ie, the proportion of cancer cases that would require radiotherapy on the basis of guideline recommendations), and to estimate the number of megavoltage machines needed in each country to meet this demand. Information on the number of megavoltage machines available in each country was retrieved from the Directory of Radiotherapy Centres. Gaps were determined by comparing the projected number of megavoltage machines needed with the number of machines available in each region. Megavoltage machine numbers, local control, and overall survival benefits were compared with previous data from 2012 and projected data for 2040.
FINDINGS: 57 countries within the Asia-Pacific region were included in the analysis with 9·48 million new cases of cancer in 2020, an increase of 2·66 million from 2012. Local control was 7·42% and overall survival was 3·05%. Across the Asia-Pacific overall, the current optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate is 49·10%, which means that 4·66 million people will need radiotherapy in 2020, an increase of 1·38 million (42%) from 2012. The number of megavoltage machines increased by 1261 (31%) between 2012 and 2020, but the demand for these machines increased by 3584 (42%). The Asia-Pacific region only has 43·9% of the megavoltage machines needed to meet demand, ranging from 9·9-40·5% in LMICs compared with 67·9% in HICs. 12 000 additional megavoltage machines will be needed to meet the projected demand for 2040.
INTERPRETATION: The difference between supply and demand with regard to megavoltage machine availability has continued to widen in LMICs over the past decade and is projected to worsen by 2040. The data from this study can be used to provide evidence for the need to incorporate radiotherapy in national cancer control plans and to inform governments and policy makers within the Asia-Pacific region regarding the urgent need for investment in this sector.
FUNDING: The Regional Cooperative Agreement for Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology for Asia and the Pacific (RCA) Regional Office (RCARP03).
PURPOSE: To review and generate consensus on best practices of fracture liaison service (FLS) in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region.
METHODS: In October 2017, the Taiwanese Osteoporosis Association (TOA) invited experts from the AP region (n = 23), the Capture the Fracture Steering Committee (n = 2), and the USA (n = 1) to join the AP region FLS Consensus Meeting in Taipei. After two rounds of consensus generation, the recommendations on the 13 Best Practice Framework (BPF) standards were reported and reviewed by the attendees. Experts unable to attend the on-site meeting reviewed the draft, made suggestions, and approved the final version.
RESULTS: Because the number of FLSs in the region is rapidly increasing, experts agreed that it was timely to establish consensus on benchmark quality standards for FLSs in the region. They also agreed that the 13 BPF standards and the 3 levels of standards were generally applicable, but that some clarifications were necessary. They suggested, for example, that patient and family education be incorporated into the current standards and that communication with the public to promote FLSs be increased.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on the 13 BPF standards reviewed in this meeting was that they were generally applicable and required only a few advanced clarifications to increase the quality of FLSs in the region.
METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.
METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from University Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Taylor's University (TU) on three undergraduate programmes. In Round 1, participants were asked to select the topics from the respective syllabi to be developed into RLOs. Priority ranking was determined by using frequencies and proportions. The first quartile of the prioritised topics was included in Round 2 survey, which the participants were asked to rate the level of priority of each topic using a 5-point Likert scale. The mean score of the topics was compared between students and educators.
RESULT: A total of 43 educators and 377 students participated in this study. For UM and TU Pharmacy, there was a mismatch in the prioritised topics between the students and educators. For UPM, both the educators and students have prioritised the same topics in both rounds. To harmonise the prioritisation of topics between students and educators for UM and TU Pharmacy, the topics with a higher mean score by both the students and educators were prioritised.
CONCLUSION: The mismatch in prioritised topics between students and educators uncovered factors that might influence the prioritisation process. This study highlighted the importance of conducting needs assessment at the beginning of eLearning resources development.