METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among all pharmacy staff in public healthcare facilities throughout Sarawak. Burnout was measured using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Multiple logistic regression analysed demographic and work characteristics associated with burnout. Open-ended replies on burnout causes, impact, coping strategies and employer's role were coded and thematically analysed.
KEY FINDINGS: A total of 329 responses were received. The prevalence of personal, work and patient-related burnout was 54.7, 47.1 and 35.3%, respectively. Respondents facing problems with child support were 8.26 and 3.62 times more likely to suffer from personal and work-related burnout. Working in areas with potential exposure to COVID-19 patients increased the odds of patient and work-related burnout by 2.80 and 1.86 times, respectively. Burnout symptoms affected their quality of life; nevertheless, self-reported coping strategies were mostly positive. Respondents emphasised the need for organisational interventions, including increased resource allocation, better workload distribution and promotion of work-life balance, to mitigate burnout.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of public sector pharmacy staff continue to experience burnout two years into the pandemic. Regular well-being assessments and supportive policies are recommended to help them cope with increased stress. Additional training for supervisors may be necessary to effectively manage staff and workload during a pandemic.
METHODS: A survey questionnaire was administered online and as hard copy using purposive sampling to 32 healthcare facilities providing cancer services and the Formulary Management Branch in the Ministry of Health. Respondents reported whether a criterion "will be considered" and weighted its relative importance on a 5-point scale. The choice of safety and efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were ranked from 1 to 5, and the minimum value of benefit for the efficacy/effectiveness outcome ranked 1 was provided. Trade-offs between survival and quality of life were also explored. Inferential statistics were used to explore difference in responses.
RESULTS: A total of 316 healthcare professionals responded to the survey. The most important criteria for value assessment of cancer drug were safety and effectiveness. Other criteria deemed important were quality of evidence, disease severity, and patient-reported outcomes. There was no difference in the criteria preference and weights across the various respondent groups. Overall survival was the most preferred clinical benefit outcome. Overall, willingness to pay was higher for life-prolonging treatment than treatment that improved quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that a wide range of criteria beyond the traditional decision-making criteria of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness are important for value assessment of cancer drugs for the purpose of formulary decisions.
METHODS: We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold.
CONCLUSION: The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted based on the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology, and Levac et al 's methodological enhancement. An experienced information specialist (HM) searched the following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The search terms were both keywords in the title and/or abstract and subject headings (eg, MeSH, EMTREE) as appropriate. Search results were downloaded, imported and stored into a 'Refworks' folder specifically created for reference management. The preliminary search was conducted between 7 December 2017 and 14 December 2017. Quantitative methods using content analysis will be used to categorise study findings on factors associated with trust between patients, clients and healthcare providers. The collection of studies will be also examined for heterogeneity. Qualitative analysis on peer reviewed articles of qualitative interviews and focus group discussion will be conducted; it allows clear identification of themes arising from the data, facilitating prioritisation, higher order abstraction and theory development. A consultation exercise with stakeholders may be incorporated as a knowledge translation component of the scoping study methodology.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will be obtained for the research project from the Institutional Review Board. The International Medical University will use the findings of this scoping review research to improve the understanding of trust in healthcare, in its endeavour to improve health services delivery in its healthcare clinics and hospitals, and in its teaching and learning curriculum. The findings will also help faculty make evidence based decisions to focus resources and research as well as help to advance the science in this area. Dissemination of the results of the scoping review will be made through peer-reviewed publications, research reports and presentations at conferences and seminars.
Methods: This study used five series of National Health and Morbidity Survey data from 1986 to 2015. Healthcare utilisation for inpatient, outpatient and dental care were analysed. SES was grouped based on household expenditure variables accounting for total number of adults and children in the household using consumption per adult equivalents approach. The determination of healthcare utilisation across the SES segments was measured using concentration index.
Results: The overall distribution of inpatient utilisation tended towards the pro-poor, although only data from 1996 (P-value = 0.017) and 2006 (P-value = 0.021) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Out-patient care showed changing trends from initially being pro-rich in 1986 (P < 0.05), then gradually switching to pro-poor in 2015 (P < 0.05). Dental care utilisation was significantly pro-rich throughout the survey period (P < 0.05). Public providers mostly showed significantly pro-poor trends for both in- and out-patient care (P < 0.05). Private providers, meanwhile, constantly showed a significantly pro-rich (P < 0.05) trend of utilisation.
Conclusion: Total health utilisation was close to being equal across SES throughout the years. However, this overall effect exhibited inequities as the effect of pro-rich utilisation in the private sector negated the pro-poor utilisation in the public sector. Strategies to improve equity should be consistent by increasing accessibility to the private sectors, which has been primarily dominated by the richest population.