METHODS: Using online surveys, availability of specialty manpower and MDTBs among PSTUs was first determined. From the subset of PSTUs with MDTBs, one pediatric surgeon and one pediatric oncologist from each center were queried using 5-point Likert scale questions adapted from published questionnaires.
RESULTS: In 37 (80.4%) of 46 identified PSTUs, availability of pediatric-trained specialists was as follows: oncologists, 94.6%; surgeons, 91.9%; radiologists, 54.1%; pathologists, 40.5%; radiation oncologists, 29.7%; nuclear medicine physicians, 13.5%; and nurses, 81.1%. Availability of pediatric-trained surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists was significantly associated with the existence of MDTBs (P = .037, .005, and .022, respectively). Among 43 (89.6%) of 48 respondents from 24 PSTUs with MDTBs, 90.5% of oncologists reported > 50% oncology-dedicated workload versus 22.7% of surgeons. Views on benefits and barriers did not significantly differ between oncologists and surgeons. The majority agreed that MDTBs helped to improve accuracy of treatment recommendations and team competence. Complex cases, insufficient radiology and pathology preparation, and need for supplementary investigations were the top barriers.
CONCLUSION: This first known profile of pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia found that availability of pediatric-trained subspecialists was a significant prerequisite for pediatric MDTBs in this region. Most PSTUs lacked pediatric-trained pathologists and radiologists. Correspondingly, gaps in radiographic and pathologic diagnoses were the most common limitations for MDTBs. Greater emphasis on holistic multidisciplinary subspecialty development is needed to advance pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The package known as "Preemie Mom: A Guide for You" was designed based on Stufflebeam's model and has four phases: (1) content evaluation from available sources of information, (2) input evaluation based on mothers' need related to premature baby care, (3) process evaluation for package designing and content drafting, and (4) product evaluation to determine its feasibility. The contents were extracted and collated for validation by consulting various specialists in related fields. A final draft was drawn based on comments given by experts. Comments from the mothers were taken for formatting, visual appearance, and content flow for easy understanding and usage.
RESULTS: All ten existing articles and eight relevant documents were gathered and critically appraised. The package was designed based on 11 main components related to the care of premature baby after discharge. The content validation was accepted at a minimum score of 0.85 for the item-level content validity index analysis. Both experts and mothers were agreed that the package is easy to use and well accepted as a guide after discharge. The agreement rate by the mothers was at 93.33% and greater for the front page, writing style, structure, presentation, and motives of the package.
CONCLUSIONS: "Preemie Mom: A Guide for You" is a validated health educational package and ready to be used to meet the needs of the mother for premature baby care at home.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey using selfadministered questionnaires was conducted among all specialists working in government specialist hospitals in the northern states of Malaysia.
RESULTS: Out of 733 questionnaires distributed, 467 were returned giving a response rate of 63.7%. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents believed that research benefits patients while 93.3% think research helps in their professional development. However, 34.8% think that under their present working conditions, it is unlikely they will participate in research. The major barriers identified were lack of funds for research (81%); lack access to expertise, software or statistical analysis (78.4%); interference with daily work schedule (75.1%) and inconsistent manpower in their department (74.2%). There are three barriers with statistically significant difference between hospitals with CRC compared to hospitals without CRC; lack of funds, mentors and access to expertise, software or statistical analysis. The demographic factors, attitudes and barriers contributing to involvement in research also investigated. The main facilitators for the conduct of research are potential to benefit patients and potential for professional development.
CONCLUSION: Taking note of the findings, the Ministry of Health can implement appropriate strategies to improve specialist participation in research.
Method: This cross-sectional study was carried out in urban areas in the Fars and Mazandaran provinces in 2016. The sample consisted of 143 and 96 family physicians, respectively, in Fars and Mazandaran provinces and was selected using the stratified random sampling method. Data were collected using a questionnaire and included both sociodemographic variables and factors assessing the family physicians' satisfaction levels. Each factor was scored based on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 points, and any satisfaction level higher than 3 out of 5 was equated with being satisfied.
Results: The overall satisfaction levels among family physicians in Fars and Mazandaran provinces were 2.77±0.53 and 3.37±0.56, respectively, revealing a statistically significant difference between provinces (p<0.001). Moreover, the mean satisfaction scores for the performances of healthcare centers, insurance companies, specialists, healthcare workers, and the population covered were 2.78±0.1, 2.54±0.9, 2.52±0.8, 4.24±0.07, and 2.96±0.8, respectively. The family physicians' levels of satisfaction were significantly correlated with population size (p=0.02, r= -0.106), and willingness to stay in an urban family physician program (p<0.001, r= +0.398).
Conclusion: This study revealed that family physicians exhibited a low level of satisfaction with the urban family physician program. Given the direct association between family physicians' satisfaction levels and retention in the program, it is expected that family physicians will no longer stay in the program, and it is likely to have subsequent executive problems.
Methods: An online survey was conducted among healthcare providers across public health clinics in Malaysia. All family medicine specialists, medical officers, nurses and assistant medical officers involved in the screening program for adult men were invited to answer a 51-item questionnaire via email or WhatsApp. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants' socio-demographic information, current screening practices, barriers and facilitators to using the screening tool, and views on the content and format of the screening tool.
Results: A total of 231 healthcare providers from 129 health clinics participated in this survey. Among them, 37.44% perceived the implementation of the screening program as a "top-down decision." Although 37.44% found the screening tool for adult men "useful," some felt that it was "time consuming" to fill out (38.2%) and "lengthy" (28.3%). In addition, 'adult men refuse to answer' (24.1%) was cited as the most common patient-related barrier.
Conclusions: This study provided useful insights into the challenges encountered by the public healthcare providers when implementing a national screening program for men. The screening tool for adult men should be revised to make it more user-friendly. Further studies should explore the reasons why men were reluctant to participate in health screenings, thus enhancing the implementation of screening programs in primary care.