METHODS: Patients aged 18 years old or above and who were scheduled for gynecology surgery were selected. Three different models with a combination of latent factors were based on a priori hypotheses from previous studies. The root-mean-squared error of approximation, comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, Chi-squared test, and change in Chi-squared statistic given a change in degrees of freedom between models were used to assess the model fit to the present data.
RESULTS: A total of 302 patients completed the questionnaire. The five-factor model which was based on Gordon's study has an acceptable fit for the data and was superior when compared to the one-factor baseline model. Although the four-factor model, which originated from Botti's study, also demonstrates a good model fit, the "perception of care" construct was excluded in this model. The "perception of care" construct is conceptually important as patient-centered care has become the focus of quality improvement of pain service.
CONCLUSIONS: The APS-POQ-R is easy to administer and is useful for quality evaluation in postoperative pain management. The present study demonstrates that a five-factor structure of the APS-POQ-R is the best fitting model in our patient sample. The results of this study provide further evidence to support the use of APS-POQ-R as a measurement tool for pain management evaluation in acute postoperative patients with a multi-cultural background.
Methods: We applied a retrospective approach using a top-down costing method to estimate the cost of health care services. Clinical and Administrative departments divided into cost centres, and the unit cost was calculated by dividing the total cost of final care cost centres into the total number of patients discharged in one year. The average cost of inpatient services was calculated based on the average cost of each ward and the number of patients treated.
Results: The average cost per patient stayed in KFCH was SAR 19,034, with the highest cost of SAR 108,561 for patients in the Orthopedic ward. The average cost of the patient in the Surgery ward, Plastic surgery, Neurosurgery, Medical ward, Pediatric ward and Gynecology ward was SAR 33,033, SAR 29,425, SAR 23,444, SAR 20,450, SAR 9579 and SAR 8636 respectively.
Conclusion: This study provides necessary information about the cost of health care services in a tertiary care setting. This information can be used as a primary tool and reference for further studies in other regions of the country. Hence, this data can help to provide a better understanding of tertiary hospital costing in the region to achieve the privatization objective.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test.
RESULTS: For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p= 0.014).
CONCLUSION: The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.