METHOD: In this observational, cross-sectional study, patients (≥12 years) were recruited between July and December 2019 from 15 primary and specialty care centres in Malaysia. Prescribed asthma treatments and severe exacerbation history within 12 months prior and asthma symptom control during the study visit were evaluated. Associations of SABA prescription with asthma control and severe exacerbation were analysed using multivariable regression models.
RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-one patients (primary care, n=265 [36.3%]; specialty care, n=466 [63.7%]) were evaluated. The prevalence of SABA over-prescription (≥3 SABA prescriptions/year) was 47.4% (primary care, 47.1%; specialty care, 47.6%), 51.8% and 44.5% among all patients and patients with mild and moderate-to-severe asthma, respectively. Altogether 9.0% (n=66) purchased SABA without a prescription; among them, 43.9% (n=29) purchased ≥3 inhalers. The mean (standard deviation) number of severe asthma exacerbations was 1.38 (2.76), and 19.7% (n=144) and 25.7% (n=188) had uncontrolled and partly controlled symptoms, respectively. Prescriptions of ≥3 SABA inhalers (vs 1-2) were associated with lower odds of at least partly controlled asthma (odds ratio=0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.27-0.67) and higher odds of having severe exacerbation(s) (odds ratio=2.04; 95% CI=1.44-2.89).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of SABA over-prescription in Malaysia is high, regardless of the prescriber type, emphasising the need for healthcare providers and policymakers to adopt latest evidence-based recommendations to address this public health concern.
METHOD: This mixed-method study was conducted from May to September 2021 in the Gosaba rural block of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. Quantitative data were collected from 326 adolescents using a pre-tested structured questionnaire. Qualitative data were collected via four focus group discussions among 30 adolescents and key-informant interviews among six healthcare workers. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS, while qualitative data were analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Ninety-six (29.4%) adolescents had utilised ARSH services at least once during adolescence. The factors associated with non-utilisation of ARSH services were younger age, female sex, increasing reproductive health stigma and decreasing parent-adolescent communication related to sexual health. Qualitative exploration revealed that unawareness regarding services, perceived lack of privacy and confidentiality at healthcare facilities and disruption of services post-emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic were some major barriers to ARSH service utilisation.
CONCLUSION: A multi-component strategy, including promotion of adolescent-friendly health clinics, community support interventions associated with motivation and counselling of parents regarding the importance of adolescent reproductive health, is needed to improve the utilisation of ARSH services. Necessary steps to correct the deficiencies at the facility level should also be prioritised.
Methods: Qualitative interviews and focus group discussions were conducted (December 2016 to July 2017) with clinical supervisors (n=11) and clinical trainees (n=26) utilising a topic guide exploring institutional guidelines, research culture and supervisor-student roles. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically to identify barriers to research supervision.
Results: Supervisors and trainees from 11 out of 18 departments participated. Both clinical supervisors and trainees struggled to successfully integrate a compulsory research component into residency training. Among the reasons identified included a lack of supervisory access due to the nature of clinical rotations and placements, clashing training priorities (clinical vs research) that discouraged trainees and supervisors from engaging in research, poor research expertise and experience among clinical supervisors hampering high-quality supervision, and a frustrating lack of clear standards between the various parties involved in research guidance and examination.
Conclusion: Both clinical supervisors and trainees struggled to successfully integrate a compulsory research component into residency training. This was not only an issue of resource limitation since questions regarding clinical priorities and unclear research standards emerged. Thus, institutional coordinators need to set clear standards and provide adequate training to make research meaningful and achievable for busy clinical supervisors and trainees.
METHODS: A multi-centre cross-sectional study was conducted prospectively at all public healthcare clinics across Kuching, Sarawak. A questionnaire was adapted and modified from an overseas validated questionnaire, consisting of four parts: demographic data, familiarity towards telemedicine, factors related to the perception of telemedicine and willingness to implement telemedicine.
RESULTS: A total of 131 doctors were recruited. Of them, 43.5% had never interacted with patients via email, WhatsApp or Telegram, while 68.7% had never attended any conferences, speeches or meetings regarding telemedicine. The doctors had low familiarity towards guidelines, technology and medical applications of telemedicine. The majority agreed on the ability of telemedicine to save patients' time and money, the potential of ICT in healthcare and the necessity during a pandemic but perceived the possibility of technical difficulties. The doctors who had experience in interacting with patients via email, WhatsApp or Telegram (P=0.001) and those who had ≤8 years of working experience (P=0.04) had a significantly better perception towards telemedicine.
CONCLUSION: Although the familiarity towards telemedicine among public primary care doctors is low, their perception is good in a majority of areas. Adequate technological support and continuous education on telemedicine and its guidelines, especially medicolegal issues, are imperative to adopt and propagate telemedicine in primary care.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study among undergraduate students aged 18 years old and above. Anthropometric measurements, such as weight, height, body composition, and blood pressure measurements, were collected. Hypertension was defined as equal or more than 140/90 mmHg. Statistical analyses were done using IBM SPSS version 20.
Results: A total of 354 respondents participated in the study. Mean age for the respondents was 21 years (SD 1.18 years). About 40% of the respondents were overweight or obese. Prevalence of hypertension was 8.2%. Mean systolic blood pressure was 119.1mmHg (SD14.36mmHg), and the mean diastolic blood pressure was 72.6mmHg (SD 9.73mmHg). There is a significant association between male gender (odds ratio =3.519, 95% CI is 1.886-6.566), body fat percentage (odds ratio = 1.944, 95% CI is 1.050-3.601), visceral fat (odds ratio = 2.830, 95% CI is 1.346-5.951), and family history of hypertension (odds ratio= 2.366, 95% CI is 1.334-4.194) and hypertension.
Conclusion: The prevalence of hypertension was less than 10% and is associated with male gender, body composition, and family history of hypertension.
METHODS: A literature search of studies from online databases PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct was conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 59 studies were selected for this review. Several studies utilised multiple assessment tools, and a total of 96 assessment tools were identified and classified into six domains: postnatal blues, postnatal stress, postnatal anxiety, postnatal depression, postnatal psychosis, and postnatal psychological disorder. In this review, EPDS was the most common tool used to identify postnatal depression and anxiety while DASS 21 was the most common tool used to identify postnatal psychological disorder. There is a wide range in preponderance of evidence for the reliability of each assessment tool and there were inconsistencies in assessing the validity of the assessment tools.
CONCLUSION: This review provides information regarding some of the main assessment tools currently available to measure postnatal mental illnesses. There were no standardised tools that were used in a particular setting. The results may differ in different population because there are differences in not only languages and dialects, but also cultural and racial backgrounds, which greatly influences their perception and interpretation of postnatal mental illness.