METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Malaysia (N = 44) and Thailand (N = 50), alongside policy document review in both countries. Data were analysed thematically. Results informed development of Systems Thinking diagrams hypothesizing potential intervention points to improve cultural competency, namely via addressing language barriers.
RESULTS: Language ability was a core tenet of cultural competency as described by participants in both countries. Malay was perceived to be an easy language that migrants could learn quickly, with perceived proficiency differing by source country and length of stay in Malaysia. Language barriers were a source of frustration for both migrants and health workers, which compounded communication of complex conditions including mental health as well as obtaining informed consent from migrant patients. Health workers in Malaysia used strategies including google translate and hand gestures to communicate, while migrant patients were encouraged to bring friends to act as informal interpreters during consultations. Current health services are not migrant friendly, which deters use. Concerns around overuse of services by non-citizens among the domestic population may partly explain the lack of policy support for cultural competency in Malaysia. Service provision for migrants in Thailand was more culturally sensitive as formal interpreters, known as Migrant Health Workers (MHW), could be hired in public facilities, as well as Migrant Health Volunteers (MHV) who provide basic health education in communities.
CONCLUSION: Perceptions of overuse by migrants in a health system acts as a barrier against system or institutional level improvements for cultural competency, in an already stretched health system. At the micro-level, language interventions with migrant workers appear to be the most feasible leverage point but raises the question of who should bear responsibility for cost and provision-employers, the government, or migrants themselves.
METHODS: A review protocol constructed by a panel of experienced academic reviewers was used to formulate the methodology, research design, search strategy and selection criteria. An extensive literature search was conducted between March-June 2020 in various major electronic biomedical databases including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and ScienceDirect. A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) were selected as the preferred item reporting method.
RESULTS: Out of a total of 34 peer-reviewed dengue-related KAP studies that were identified, 15 published from 2000 to April 2020 met the inclusion criteria. Based on the meta-analysis, a poor mean score was obtained for each of knowledge (68.89), attitude (49.86) and preventive practice (64.69). Most respondents were equipped with a good knowledge of the major clinical signs of dengue. Worryingly, 95% of respondents showed several negative attitudes towards dengue prevention, claiming that this was not possible and that enacting preventive practices was not their responsibility. Interestingly, television or radio was claimed as the main source of gaining dengue information (range 50-95%). Lastly, only five articles (33.3%) piloted or pretested their questionnaire before surveying, of which three reported Cronbach's alpha coefficient (range 0.70 to 0.90).
CONCLUSION: This review indicates that to combat the growing public health threat of dengue to the Philippines, we need the active participation of resident communities, full engagement of healthcare personnel, promotion of awareness campaigns, and access to safe complementary and alternative medicines. Importantly, the psychometric properties of each questionnaire should be assessed rigorously.
METHOD: A qualitative methodological approach was performed between March-May 2018. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore current RT policy and service availability. Key-informants were identified from a detailed stakeholder analysis of RT system in Malaysia. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded with ATLAS.ti software and underwent thematic analysis thoroughly.
RESULTS: Eight key-informants participated in the study. Barriers and related solutions were classified using the socio-ecological model (SEM). As reported, the barriers and solutions of RT in Malaysia are the results of a complex interplay of personal, cultural, and environmental factors. Key barriers are linked to public's attitude and perception towards RT and the unaccommodating practices in the healthcare fraternity for RT. Key-informants provided a systematic solution that shed light on how RT could be improved at each SEM level via effective communication, education and inter-agency collaboration.
CONCLUSION: The SEM provided a framework to foster a better understanding of current practice, barriers, and solutions to RT in Malaysia. This study is the first to explore the barriers and related solutions to RT comprehensively as a whole. Implications of these findings could prompt a policy change for a better RT service delivery model not just for Malaysia but also for other LMIC. Further stakeholder engagement and evaluation of the systems are required to provide insight into best practices that will help to improve the RT rates and service in Malaysia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
RESULTS: We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8-41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3-45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2-49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6-88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0-82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8-19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30-1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02-1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49-1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16-1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28-1.97).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.
METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted for 2 months among HCWs in the major district hospital of Darrang, Assam. A pre-tested, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from the participants. Convenience sampling approach was used to collect data from different departments of the hospitals. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were used to express the results.
RESULTS: The knowledge of HCWs regarding JE was poor with a mean knowledge score of 11.02±2.39 (out of 17), while their attitudes were positive with a mean attitudes score of 43.16± 2.47 (ranging from 13 to 52). Overall, 40.4% and 74.3% of participants demonstrated good knowledge and positive attitudes respectively. Cut-off score for good knowledge and positive attitudes toward JE was set as ≥12 and >40 respectively. Older participants (40-49 years) and experienced workers (>10 years) were significantly associated with good knowledge as compared to their referent group (p<0.05), while knowledge of nurses and other orderlies were significantly lower than physicians (p<0.01). Similar factors were associated with the positive attitudes of the participants with the exception of experience. Television was the major source of information regarding JE reported by HCWs (79%).
CONCLUSION: Although the knowledge was not optimized, HCWs exhibited positive attitudes towards JE. Future research is required to design, implement and evaluate interventions to improve the knowledge of JE among HCWs.
OBJECTIVE: This survey aims to assess differences in mental health, knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of preventive measures for COVID-19 amongst healthcare professionals (HCP) and non-healthcare professionals.
DESIGN: Multi-national cross-sectional study was carried out using electronic surveys between May-June 2020.
SETTING: Multi-national survey was distributed across 36 countries through social media, word-of-mouth, and electronic mail.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants ≥21 years working in healthcare and non-healthcare related professions.
MAIN OUTCOME: Risk factors determining the difference in KAP towards personal hygiene and social distancing measures during COVID-19 amongst HCP and non-HCP.
RESULTS: HCP were significantly more knowledgeable on personal hygiene (AdjOR 1.45, 95% CI -1.14 to 1.83) and social distancing (AdjOR 1.31, 95% CI -1.06 to 1.61) compared to non-HCP. They were more likely to have a positive attitude towards personal hygiene and 1.5 times more willing to participate in the contact tracing app. There was high compliance towards personal hygiene and social distancing measures amongst HCP. HCP with high compliance were 1.8 times more likely to flourish and more likely to have a high sense of emotional (AdjOR 1.94, 95% CI (1.44 to 2.61), social (AdjOR 2.07, 95% CI -1.55 to 2.78), and psychological (AdjOR 2.13, 95% CI (1.59-2.85) well-being.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: While healthcare professionals were more knowledgeable, had more positive attitudes, their higher sense of total well-being was seen to be more critical to enhance compliance. Therefore, focusing on the well-being of the general population would help to enhance their compliance towards the preventive measures for COVID-19.
METHODS: CINAHL and Medline (via EBSCOhost), Google Scholar, PubMed, ProQuest, Sage Journals, and Science Direct were searched. Both quantitative and/or qualitative studies in the English language were included. Intervention studies and studies focusing on HL assessment tools and prevalence of low HL were excluded. The risk of biasness reduced with the involvement of two reviewers independently assessing study eligibility and quality.
RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included, which consist of 19 quantitative, 9 qualitative, and 2 mixed-method studies. Out of 17 studies, 13 reported deficiency of HL-related knowledge among healthcare providers and 1 among patients. Three studies showed a positive attitude of healthcare providers towards learning about HL. Another three studies demonstrated patients feel shame exposing their literacy and undergoing HL assessment. Common HL communication techniques reported practiced by healthcare providers were the use of everyday language, teach-back method, and providing patients with reading materials and aids, while time constraint was the most reported HL perceived barriers by both healthcare providers and patients.
CONCLUSION: Significant gaps exists in HL knowledge among healthcare providers and patients that needs immediate intervention. Such as, greater effort placed in creating a health system that provides an opportunity for healthcare providers to learn about HL and patients to access health information with taking consideration of their perceived barriers.
METHODS: A series of qualitative interviews were conducted with policy makers and healthcare providers in four vivax-endemic countries. Routine G6PD testing is not part of current policy in Bangladesh, Cambodia or China, but it is in Malaysia. The interviews were analysed with regard to respondents perceptions of vivax malaria, -primaquine based treatment for malaria and the complexities of G6PD deficiency.
RESULTS: Three barriers to the roll-out of routine G6PD testing were identified in all sites: (a) a perceived low risk of drug-induced haemolysis; (b) the perception that vivax malaria was benign and accordingly treatment with primaquine was not regarded as a priority; and, (c) the additional costs of introducing routine testing. In Malaysia, respondents considered the current test and treat algorithm suitable and the need for an alternative approach was only considered relevant in highly mobile and hard to reach populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to increase awareness of the benefits of the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax and this should be supported by economic analyses exploring the cost effectiveness of routine G6PD testing.
METHODS: This study consisted of 3 steps; the formulation of ASMaQ draft, content validation and construct validity. A total of 110 questions were drafted with 5-point Likert scale answers. From the list, 31 were selected and subsequently tested on 158 participants. The results were analysed and validated using exploratory factor analysis on SPSS. Components were extracted and questions with low factor loading were removed. The internal consistency was then measured with Cronbach's alpha.
RESULTS: Following analysis, 3 components were extracted and named as general stroke knowledge, hyperacute stroke care and advanced stroke management. Two items were deleted leaving 29 out of 31 questions for the final validated ASMaQ. Internal consistency showed high reliability with Cronbach's alpha of 0.82. Our respondents scored a total cumulative mean of 113.62 marks or 66.6%. A sub analysis by occupation showed that medical assistants scored the lowest in the group with a score of 57% whilst specialists including neurologists scored the highest at 79.4%.
CONCLUSION: The ASMaQ is a newly developed and validated questionnaire consisting of 29 questions testing the respondents' acute stroke management knowledge.
DESIGN: In-depth interviews of adolescent health care providers, 2013-2014.
SETTING: Five countries where HPV vaccination is at various stages of implementation into national programs: Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain.
PARTICIPANTS: Adolescent health care providers (N = 151) who had administered or overseen provision of adolescent vaccinations (N = Argentina: 30, Malaysia: 30, South Africa: 31, South Korea: 30, Spain: 30).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of HPV vaccination recommendation, reasons providers do not always recommend the vaccine and facilitators to doing so, comfort level with recommending the vaccine, reasons for any discomfort, and positive and negative aspects of HPV vaccination.
RESULTS: Over half of providers 82/151 (54%) recommend HPV vaccination always or most of the time (range: 20% in Malaysia to 90% in Argentina). Most providers 112/151 (74%) said they were comfortable recommending HPV vaccination, although South Korea was an outlier 10/30 (33%). Providers cited protection against cervical cancer 124/151 (83%) and genital warts 56/151 (37%) as benefits of HPV vaccination. When asked about the problems with HPV vaccination, providers mentioned high cost 75/151 (50% overall; range: 26% in South Africa to 77% in South Korea) and vaccination safety 28/151 (19%; range: 7% in South Africa to 33% in Spain). Free, low-cost, or publicly available vaccination 59/151 (39%), and additional data on vaccination safety 52/151 (34%) and efficacy 43/151 (28%) were the most commonly cited facilitators of health provider vaccination recommendation.
CONCLUSION: Interventions to increase HPV vaccination should consider a country's specific provider concerns, such as reducing cost and providing information on vaccination safety and efficacy.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study (n = 230) was conducted using the Pressure Management Inventory on several female dominated health professions within a large public hospital. Analysis of variance was used to show relationship between sources and outcome of pressure. Linear regressions were used to predict which sources of pressure (IV) was linked to the outcomes of occupational pressure (DV).
RESULTS: The number one source of occupational pressure is relationships at work (i.e. with supervisors), and not workload. 'Relationship' is also the key predictor of several negative outcomes of pressure at work. Analysis of variance showed significant differences in two sources of pressures, i.e. Workload (P = 0.04) and Home-work balance (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: This paper provides insights into the occupational pressure of women health professionals by highlighting the organisational sources of pressure and the implications for preventing occupational dysfunction secondary to stress at work.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out at 10 different dental hospitals in Pakistan from March to June 2020. A 35 items valid and reliable questionnaire was used to assess the concerns, perceived impact, and preparedness of oral healthcare workers (OHCW) in COVID-19 pandemic. Chi-squared test and logistic regression were used for analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 583 OHCW participated in this study. The odds of having the awareness about the risk of exposure and fear of getting infected, were greater in the clinical than non-clinical OHCW (OR: 52.6; OR: 15.9). For social network concerns, the clinical OHCW were more likely to be concerned about their colleagues (OR: 6.0). The clinical OHCW have greater odds of worrying about telling the family/friends about the risk exposed to (OR: 2.55), being avoided because of the job (OR: 3.20) and more likely to be feeling stressed (OR: 4.31). Less than 50% of the participants felt that their institutions are well prepared and only 12.6% had attended an infection control training session. Most participants practiced self-preparation such as buying masks and disinfection (94.3%, 98.3%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of OHCW felt concerned about their risk of exposure to infection and falling ill from exposure and infecting friends/family. There is a need for training of infection control and PPE and minimizing fear and psychological impact on OHCW should be the priority in any preparedness and planning for combating COVID-19.
METHODS: We trained twenty-three participants from twelve Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies about international guidelines for medical device vigilance. We developed and used six virtual cases and six questions. We divided participants into six groups and compared their opinions. We also surveyed the country's opinion to investigate the beginning point of 'patient use'. The phases of 'patient use' are divided into: 1) inspecting, 2) preparing, and 3) applying medical device.
RESULTS: As for the question on the beginning point of 'patient use,' 28.6%, 35.7%, and 35.7% of participants provided answers regarding the first, second, and third phases, respectively. In training for applying international guidelines to virtual cases, only one of the six questions reached a consensus between the two groups in all six virtual cases. For the other five questions, different judgments were given in at least two groups.
CONCLUSION: From training courses using virtual cases, we found that there was no consensus on 'patient use' point of view of medical devices. There was a significant difference in applying definitions of adverse events written in guidelines regarding the medical device associated incidents. Our results point out that international harmonization effort is needed not only to harmonize differences in regulations between countries but also to overcome diversity in perspectives existing at the site of medical device use.
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.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using difference in differences model, BIMC Hospitals and Siloam Hospital Bali were compared before and after shift schedule realignment to test the association between shift schedule realignment and patient safety culture.
FINDINGS: Shift schedule realignment was associated with a significant improvement in staffing (coefficient 1.272; 95% CI 0.842 - 1.702; p<0.001), teamwork within units (coefficient 1.689; 95% CI 1.206 - 2.171; p<0.001), teamwork across units (coefficient 1.862; 95% CI 1.415 - 2.308; p<0.001), handoffs and transitions (coefficient 0.999; 95% CI 0.616 - 1.382; p<0.001), frequency of error reported (coefficient 1.037; 95% CI 0.581 - 1.493; p<0.001), feedback and communication about error (coefficient 1.412; 95% CI 0.982 - 1.841; p<0.001) and communication openness (coefficient 1.393; 95% CI 0.968 - 1.818; p<0.001).
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With positive impact on patient safety culture, shift schedule realignment should be considered as quality improvement initiative. It stretches the compressed workload suffered by staff while maintaining 40 h per week in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Shift schedule realignment, designed to improve patient safety culture, has never been implemented in any Indonesian private hospital. Other hospital managers might also appreciate knowing about the shift schedule realignment to improve the patient safety culture.
METHODS: Adolescent providers (n = 151) from Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain were surveyed on messages, family decision makers, and sources of communication to best motivate parents to vaccinate their adolescent daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood of recommending messages specifically targeted at cervical cancer with providers' characteristics: gender, medical specialization, and previous administration of human papillomavirus vaccination.
RESULTS: Mothers were considered the most important human papillomavirus vaccination decision makers for their daughters (range 93%-100%). Television was cited as the best source of information on human papillomavirus vaccination in surveyed countries (range 56.5%-87.1%), except Spain where one-on-one discussions were most common (73.3%). Prevention messages were considered the most likely to motivate parents to vaccinate their daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus, in all five countries (range 30.8%-55.9%). Optimal messages emphasized cervical cancer prevention, and included strong provider recommendation to vaccinate, vaccine safety and efficacy, timely vaccination, and national policy for human papillomavirus vaccination. Pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists were more likely to cite that the best prevention messages should focus on cervical cancer (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 1.17 to 15.02 vs other medical specialists).
CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication messages that would motivate parents to vaccinate against human papillomavirus were based on strong recommendation emphasizing prevention of cervical cancer. To frame convincing messages to increase vaccination uptake, adolescent providers should receive updated training on human papillomavirus and associated cancers, while clearly addressing human papillomavirus vaccination safety and efficacy.