MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 35 questions was distributed by mail or an online survey to 425 registered dentists selected according to place of work by stratified random sampling.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three dentists responded to the survey. A positive attitude towards FS and PRR was noted among most Malaysian dentists. About half of the respondents used FS/PRR occasionally (48.4%), while few (13.7%) applied them routinely. The majority of the dentists agreed that minimally invasive dentistry is important and FS are effective in caries prevention, using them on high caries-risk individuals. Most of the dentists used pumice or paste to clean teeth before placing FS/PRR. A significant number of dentists used a bonding agent prior to placing FS. Although only 57.5% dentists were aware of guidelines for FS use, most dentists agreed that guidelines are important.
CONCLUSION: Although there was a positive attitude towards FS/PRR, few dentists applied them routinely. Some of the steps undertaken for placement of FS and PRR were outdated. Updating local guidelines for dentists to ensure uniform practice of FS and PRR is justified.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving PCP with ≥1-year working experience in Malaysian primary care settings. An adapted and validated 25-item FH-KAP questionnaire was disseminated during primary care courses. Total score for each domain was calculated by summing-up the correct responses, converted into percentage scores. Normality distribution was examined and comparisons of mean/median percentage scores were made between the two groups of PCP.
RESULTS: A total of 372 PCP completed the questionnaire. Regarding knowledge, 77.7% correctly defined FH. However, only 8.3% correctly identified coronary artery disease risk in untreated FH. The mean percentage knowledge score was significantly higher in PCP-PG-Qual compared to PCP-noPG-Qual (48.9, SD ± 13.92 vs. 35.2, SD ± 14.13), t(370) = 8.66, p
METHODS: Adolescent providers (n = 151) from Argentina, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain were surveyed on messages, family decision makers, and sources of communication to best motivate parents to vaccinate their adolescent daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the likelihood of recommending messages specifically targeted at cervical cancer with providers' characteristics: gender, medical specialization, and previous administration of human papillomavirus vaccination.
RESULTS: Mothers were considered the most important human papillomavirus vaccination decision makers for their daughters (range 93%-100%). Television was cited as the best source of information on human papillomavirus vaccination in surveyed countries (range 56.5%-87.1%), except Spain where one-on-one discussions were most common (73.3%). Prevention messages were considered the most likely to motivate parents to vaccinate their daughters overall, and against human papillomavirus, in all five countries (range 30.8%-55.9%). Optimal messages emphasized cervical cancer prevention, and included strong provider recommendation to vaccinate, vaccine safety and efficacy, timely vaccination, and national policy for human papillomavirus vaccination. Pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists were more likely to cite that the best prevention messages should focus on cervical cancer (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 1.17 to 15.02 vs other medical specialists).
CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication messages that would motivate parents to vaccinate against human papillomavirus were based on strong recommendation emphasizing prevention of cervical cancer. To frame convincing messages to increase vaccination uptake, adolescent providers should receive updated training on human papillomavirus and associated cancers, while clearly addressing human papillomavirus vaccination safety and efficacy.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Thailand with 130 stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, pharmacy experts, educators, health care providers, patients, students and parents) from August-October 2013. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three main themes were derived from the findings: 1. influences on curriculum change (e.g., the needs of pharmacists to provide better patient care, the US-Thai consortium for the development of pharmacy education); 2. perceived benefits (e.g., improve pharmacy competencies from generalists to specialists, ready to work after graduation, providing a high quality of patient care); and 3. concerns (e.g., the higher costs of study for a longer period of time, the mismatch between the pharmacy graduates' competency and the job market's needs, insufficient preceptors and training sites, lack of practical experience of the faculty members and issues related to the separate licenses that are necessary due to the difference in the graduates' specialties).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to highlight the issues surrounding the transition to the 6-year PharmD programme in Thailand, which was initiated due to the need for higher levels of competency among the nation's pharmacists. The transition was influenced by many factors. Many participants perceived benefits from the new pharmacy curriculum. However, some participants were concerned about this transition. Although most of the respondents accepted the need to go forward to the 6-year PharmD programme, designing an effective curriculum, providing a sufficient number of qualified PharmD preceptors, determining certain competencies of pharmacists in different practices and monitoring the quality of pharmacy education still need to be addressed during this transitional stage of pharmacy education in Thailand.
METHOD: Structured interviews with community pharmacists. Informed consent was obtained and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content analysis of themes on awareness of ADR reporting, reporting activities, attitudes and views on patient reporting.
RESULTS: All pharmacists claimed to have some knowledge of a reporting system but only one had submitted a report directly to the regulatory authority. Despite the low level of reporting activities, all participants agreed that it was part of their professional obligation to report an ADR. Most participants were not aware of the direct patient reporting scheme and were skeptical about its success. Lack of awareness and patients' limited knowledge about their medications were viewed as barriers to patient reporting. Local attitudinal issues including pharmacists' attitude towards ADR reporting were described as possible contributing factors.
CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists have an important role in reporting ADRs. Many Malaysian patients are still perceived to be ill-informed of their medications, an important determinant to the success of patient reporting. There is a need for further training about ADRs and ADR reporting for health professionals and further education for patients.