METHODS: We selected two medicines on the 2013 Thai national list of essential medicines (NLEM) [letrozole and imatinib] and three unlisted medicines for the same indications [trastuzumab, nilotinib and dasatinib]. We created timelines of access policies and programs for these products based on scientific and grey literature. Using IMS Health sales data, we described the trajectories of sales volumes of the study medicines between January 2001 and December 2012. We compared estimated average numbers of patients treated before and after the implementation of policies and programs for each product.
RESULTS: Different stakeholders implemented multiple interventions to increase access to the study medicines for different patient populations. During 2007-2009, the Thai Government created a special NLEM category with different coverage requirements for payers and issued compulsory licenses; payers negotiated prices with manufacturers and engaged in pooled procurement; pharmaceutical companies expanded patient assistance programs and lowered prices in different ways. Compared to before the interventions, estimated numbers of patients treated with each medicine increased significantly afterwards: for letrozole from 645 (95% CI 366-923) to 3683 (95% CI 2,748-4,618); for imatinib from 103 (95% CI 72-174) to 350 (95% CI 307-398); and for trastuzumab from 68 (95% CI 45-118) to 412 (95% CI 344-563).
CONCLUSIONS: Government, payers, and manufacturers implemented multi-pronged approaches to facilitate access to targeted cancer therapies for the Thai population, which differed by medicine. Routine monitoring is needed to assess clinical and economic impacts of these strategies in the health system.
MAIN BODY: Focusing on COVID-19 and migrant workers in Malaysia, this review addresses two research queries: (i) what are the policy responses of the government toward migrants with regard to COVID-19? (ii) what are the lessons learned from the Malaysian experience of COVID-19 and migrants that can inform pandemic preparedness, especially regarding migrant health policy? The review used Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. In addition to the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases, and Malaysian English language newspapers, including the Malay Mail, Malaysiakini, and the New Straits Times, the search also included reports from the websites of government ministries and departments, such as the Immigration Department, Ministry of Human Resources, Ministry of Health, and the International Trade and Industry Ministry.
CONCLUSION: Using the case example of Malaysia and the policy approach toward migrant populations in Malaysia during the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020 and 2021, this paper unravels complex pathways and inter-linkages between the contexts of migration and health which coalesced to engender and exacerbate vulnerability to disease and ill-health for the migrant workers. The lack of coordination and coherence in policies addressing migrant workers during the pandemic, the normalization of cheap and disposable labor in neoliberal economic regimes, and the securitization of migration were key factors contributing to the failure of migration policies to provide protection to migrant workers during COVID-19. The review suggests that policy approaches embodying the principles of Health in All Policies, a whole-of-society approach, and the promotion of safe, just, and regular migration, predicated on equity and inclusion, are integral to a comprehensive and effective response to pandemics such as COVID-19.
METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed.
RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability.
CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.
METHODS: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation.
RESULTS: There are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient' programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan.
CONCLUSION: In summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia.
METHODS: A retrospective case-note analysis was conducted on a cohort of 3935 patients attending primary care at the University Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia from February 2012 till May 2014 with URTI symptoms. Demographics, clinical characteristics, medical and vaccination history were obtained from electronic medical records, and mortality data from the National Registration Department. Comparisons were made between those aged <25, ≥25 to <65 and ≥65 years.
RESULTS: 470 (11.9%) had PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection. Six (1.3%) received prior influenza vaccination. Those aged ≥65 years were more likely to have ≥2 comorbidities (P health outcomes. Our findings will now inform future health policies on older persons and economic modelling of adult vaccination programmes.