RESEARCH DESIGN: Data from two previous qualitative studies, the Front-line Equitable Evidence-based Decision Making in Medicine and Creating, Synthesising and Implementing evidence-based medicine (EBM) in primary care studies, were sorted, arranged, classified and compared with the help of qualitative research software, NVivo V.10. Data categories were interrogated through comparison between and within datasets to identify similarities and differences in rural and urban practices. Themes were then refined by removing or recoding redundant and infrequent nodes into major key themes.
PARTICIPANTS: There were 55 primary care physicians who participated in 10 focus group discussions (n=31) and 9 individual physician in-depth interviews.
SETTING: The study was conducted across three primary care settings-an academic primary care practice and both private and public health clinics in rural (Pahang) and urban (Selangor and Kuala Lumpur) settings in Malaysia.
RESULTS: We identified five major themes that influenced the implementation of EBM according to practice settings, namely, workplace factors, EBM understanding and awareness, work experience and access to specialist placement, availability of resources and patient population. Lack of standardised care is a contributing factor to differences in EBM practice, especially in rural areas.
CONCLUSIONS: There were major differences in the practice of EBM between rural and urban primary care settings. These findings could be used by policy-makers, administrators and the physicians themselves to identify strategies to improve EBM practices that are targeted according to workplace settings.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary care physicians (PCPs) in public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A 30-item self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge and practice of CRC screening.
RESULTS: The response rate was 86.4% (n = 197/228). Less than half (39.1%) of the respondents answered correctly for all risk stratification scenarios. Mean knowledge score on CRC screening modalities was 48.7% ± 17.7%. The knowledge score was positively associated with having postgraduate educational qualification and usage of screening guidelines. Overall, 69.9% of PCPs reported that they practised screening. However, of these, only 25.9% of PCPs screened over 50% of all eligible patients. PCPs who agreed that screening was cost-effective (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69‒6.59) and those who agreed that they had adequate resources in their locality (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01‒3.68) were more likely to practise screening. Knowledge score was not associated with the practice of screening (p = 0.185).
CONCLUSION: Knowledge and practice of CRC screening was inadequate among PCPs. Knowledge of screening did not translate into its practice. PCPs' perceptions about cost-effectiveness of screening and adequate resources were important determinants of the practice of screening.