METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, matched pair, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Randomisation is performed using a computer-generated table with a 1:1 allocation comparing the SIMSP and the POHP involving 28 preschools in the Kampar district, Perak, Malaysia. The intervention consists of preschool visits by a group of dental therapists, in-class oral health lessons and daily toothbrushing conducted by class teacher, child home toothbrushing supervised by parents, and infographic oral health messages to parents. The control consists of the existing POHP that involves preschool visits by a group of dental therapists only. The trial lasts for 6 months. Primary outcome variable is the mean plaque score change after 6 months. To determine the feasibility of the SIMSP, a process evaluation will be conducted using the perspectives of dental therapists, teachers, and parents on the appropriateness, effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers to the SIMSP implementation as well as an audit trail to assess the trial intervention.
DISCUSSION: Cluster randomisation may lead to a random effect and cluster selection bias. These factors will be accounted for when analysing the data and interpreting the outcomes. The effectiveness of the SIMSP will be evaluated by comparing the results with those of the POHP.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04339647 . Registered on 5 April 2020 - Retrospectively registered.
METHOD: Stakeholders from key dental organisations/professions in Malaysia were purposively sampled and invited to participate in a semi-structured interview (n = 20) using a pre-tested topic guide. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis.
RESULTS: Drivers for workforce were identified across four main domains: policy-politics; trends in demography; social and economic; and, technology-scientific development. The pace of change and possible interplay between drivers, most notably government policy, liberalisation of education and health services and challenges of workforce governance, followed by Malaysian demography and health trends. Implications for the future, including possible uncertainties, particularly in relation to specialisation and privatisation were identified, together in balancing and meeting public health needs/demands with professional career expectations.
CONCLUSION: Stakeholders' views on the high-level drivers for change broadly mirror those of high-income countries; however, specific challenges for Malaysia relate to rapid expansion of dental education and a young workforce with significant career aspirations, together with imbalances in the health care system. The impact of these drivers was perceived as leading to greatest uncertainty around specialisation and privatisation of the future workforce.
Methods: A qualitative study was conducted among 33 women attending Maternal and Child Health (MCH) clinics in Kuala Lumpur. Data were obtained through a face-to-face semi-structured interview and analysed using framework analysis.
Results: The women considered PND as a personal and temporary issue. Therefore, professional care was deemed unnecessary for them. Additionally, all Malay women considered religious approach as their primary coping strategy for PND. However, this was not the case for most Indian and Chinese women.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicated that women did not acknowledge the roles of Healthcare Practitioners (HCPs) in alleviating their emotional distress.Also, they perceived PND as a personal problem and less serious emotional condition. It is due to this perception that the women adopted self-help care as their primary coping strategy for PND. However, the coping strategy varied between different cultures. These findings underscore the importance of HCPs' proactive action to detect and alleviate PND symptoms as their attitude towards PND may influence Women's help-seeking behaviour.
METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures.
RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised.
CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.
METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.
RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.