DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study applied stratified random sampling to collect data from 15 different hospitals in Peninsular Malaysia. The self-administered survey questionnaires were distributed among 673 hospital staff (i.e. doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and medical laboratory technologists) to obtain 335 useful responses with a 49.47 per cent valid response rate. The research data were analysed based on confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling by using AMOS version 23 software.
FINDINGS: The research findings indicated that LSS and workforce management have a significant impact on quality performance of the Malaysian hospitals, whereas senior management commitment was found to have an insignificant relationship with quality performance. The research findings indicate that senior management commitment has no direct significant relationship with quality performance, but it has an indirect significant relationship with quality performance through the mediating effects of LSS and workforce management.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This research focussed solely on healthcare organisations in Malaysia and thus the results might not be applicable for other countries as well as other service organisations.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This research provides theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions for the LSS approach and the research findings are expected to provide guidelines to enhance the level of quality performance in healthcare organisations in Malaysia as well as other countries.
METHODS: An iterative process of questionnaire development was undertaken by combining two approaches: the steps proposed by Robert F. DeVellis for scale development and the recommended practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European statistical system. We attempted to develop the draft questionnaire that involved conceptualization and operationalization, generation of an item pool, development of the questionnaire format, review of the initial item pool by experts, and consideration of validation items for inclusion.
RESULTS: We generated an item pool from in-depth interviews with 14 women who sought infertility care within 6 months before the interview time. We then added more items from a literature review. The item pool contained 123 items distributed through 10 domains. Ten women with infertility were included for face validation. Then, experts with backgrounds in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Family Medicine, and Public Health reviewed the item pool using content validation (n = 10 professors and/or specialists). The item pool was finally reduced to 57 items. We developed the draft Arabic patient-centered infertility care questionnaire for female clients (PCIQ-F) with three sections, including 66 items: background variables, PCIC experience variables, and a general question about the quality of infertility care in the health facility. The draft questionnaire was further reviewed and edited last by experts in preparation for part 2, which will test the questionnaire and prepare the final version.
CONCLUSION: The PCIQ-F questionnaire development is a multi-step iterative process started and ended by the target users as experts. Experts' participation in infertility care and in questionnaire format development had a great impact on questionnaire development and conflict resolution. We recommend this transparent and replicable approach for new instrument developers; it is likely to generate a questionnaire that is valid and acceptable to target users. The draft PCIQ-F questionnaire is ready for testing of its psychometric properties before the final version to measure the PCIC level in health facilities.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacists between March-April, 2015, using a self-administered, pre-tested questionnaire in the State of Selangor, Malaysia. A simple random sampling approach was used to select pharmacy sites. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: A total of 188 pharmacists responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 83.5%. The majority of participants (n = 182, 96.8%) believed that antimicrobial stewardship program helps healthcare professionals to improve the quality of patient care. However, more than half of pharmacists were neutral in their opinion about the incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship programs in community pharmacies (n = 102, 54.2%). Though collaboration was often done by pharmacists with other health professionals over the use of antibiotics (n = 104, 55.3%), a significant proportion of participants (n = 102, 54.2%) rarely/occasionally participate in antimicrobial awareness campaigns. Pharmacists having postgraduate qualification were more likely to held positive perceptions of, and were engaged in, antimicrobial stewardship than their non-postgraduate counterpart (p<0.05). Similarly, more experienced pharmacists (> 10 years) held positive perceptions towards antimicrobial stewardship (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study highlighted some gaps in the perception and practices of community pharmacist towards antimicrobial stewardship. Development of customized interventions would be critical to bridging these gaps and improve their perception and practices towards antimicrobial stewardship.