MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online, anonymous, voluntary survey was conducted to assess the level of knowledge and understanding about EAPs among Malaysian oncologists using SurveyMonkey® between April 2020 and June 2020. Oncologists who had enquired about EAP in the past, were invited at random to participate in the survey. Participants who did not provide consent or failed to complete the survey were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 15 oncologists participated in the survey, from both public (46.6%) and private (46.6%) practices. Most respondents (80%) had filed between 1 to 10 EAP applications in the past 12 months. For 73.3% respondents, resources or training were not provided for EAPs from institutions. Around 53% of the respondents reported that their knowledge of EAPs and application processes including country regulations is 'good'. The majority of respondents (73.3%) reported that the educational modules on an overview of EAPs, country regulations and the EAP application process will be beneficial. Most participants received information about the existing EAPs either by reaching out to a pharmaceutical sponsor or through another health care provider and some received information about the existing EAPs through their institutions or patients/caregivers. Most of the respondents recommended that pharmaceutical companies should have readily available information related to the availability and application of EAPs for all pipeline products on their websites.
DISCUSSION: EAPs are crucial treatment access pathways to provide investigational drugs to patients who have exhausted their treatment options and are not eligible for participation in clinical trials. Malaysian oncologists have a fair understanding about the EAPs and the application processes.
CONCLUSION: Additional training and awareness are needed for Malaysian oncologists to upscale the utilisation of EAPs.
AIM: This paper reviewed and reflected on the challenges and uncertainties that needed to be considered regarding the implementation and delivery of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in Malaysia.
METHODS: Our iterative writing, discussions and reflections revolved around the results of key relevant literature search from the Ministry of Health Malaysia website, PubMed, and Google Scholar, and on feedback from local clinical experts in the field of breast cancer screening practice. The articles related to risk-stratified breast cancer screening, genetic testing, screening guidelines for the Malaysia population, and articles published in English were included in this narrative review.
RESULT: Further infrastructure and workforce capacity building is needed in order to achieve successful wider implementation e.g.; genetic counselling and testing services are limited in Malaysia. Furthermore, there is a need to elicit Malaysian women's views and evaluate their acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. The primary healthcare setting is an obvious potential avenue to introduce and deliver initial risk assessment and stratification. However, the workload and willingness of Malaysian primary healthcare doctors to practice risk-stratified screening is yet to be explored to have a better understanding on their perspective.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Identifying a valid and appropriate risk model tailored to the population profile and needs of Malaysian women and conducting a pilot project of risk-stratified screening, guided by implementation science would provide lessons and insights for policymakers, health service managers, and public and primary health care professionals. The results of these activities would increase the likelihood that decisions and plans would lead to the successful implementation in Malaysia of a sustainable and effective breast cancer screening strategy that incorporates a patient-sensitive, risk-stratified approach.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using the stratified random sampling method was conducted among clinical year medical students in four public universities in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Data on the level of awareness of HTA and its associated factors were collected using a self-administered online questionnaire. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 27 to determine the level of awareness of HTA and its predictors.
RESULTS: Majority (69 percent) of participants had a low level of awareness of HTA. The predictors of high-level awareness of HTA were attitude toward HTA (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 7.417, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 3.491, 15.758), peer interaction on HTA (AOR = 0.320, 95 percent CI: 0.115, 0.888), and previous training on HTA (AOR = 4.849, 95 percent CI: 1.096, 21.444).
CONCLUSIONS: Most future doctors in public universities exhibit a low awareness of HTA. This study highlights the interplay between attitudes toward HTA, peer interaction, and previous training as influential predictors of HTA awareness. An integrated and comprehensive educational approach is recommended to cultivate a positive attitude and harness the positive aspects of peer interaction while mitigating the potential negative impact of misconceptions. Emphasizing early exposure to HTA concepts through structured programs is crucial for empowering the upcoming generation of healthcare professionals, enabling them to navigate HTA complexities and contribute to evidence-based healthcare practices in Malaysia and beyond.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHLComplet@EBSCOhost from inception until 30 September 2022, capturing studies that reported the effect of HI on healthy lifestyle and NCDs. A narrative synthesis of the studies was done. The review concluded both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. A critical appraisal checklist for survey-based studies and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies were used for the quality assessment.
RESULT: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. HI was associated with the propensity to engage in physical activities (6/11 studies), consume healthy diets (4/7 studies), not to smoke (5/11 studies) or take alcohol (5/10 studies). Six (of nine) studies showed that HI coverage was associated with a lowered prevalence of NCDs.
CONCLUSION: This evidence suggests that HI is beneficial. More reports showed that it propitiated a healthy lifestyle and was associated with a reduced prevalence of NCDs.
METHODS: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's framework and begin with a literature search using keywords in electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and PsychINFO, covering the period from January 2013 to December 2022 and limited to English language publications. Four independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts based on predefined inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of selected titles. Relevant references cited in the publications will also be examined. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be utilised to illustrate the methodology. Data from selected publications will be extracted, analysed, and categorised for further analysis.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of the scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the barriers and challenges encountered by oncology MDTs over the past decade. These findings will contribute to the existing literature and provide insights into areas that require improvement in the functioning of MDTs in oncology management. The results will be disseminated through publication in a scientific journal, which will help to share the findings with the wider healthcare community and facilitate further research and discussion in this field.
TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol for this scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework, available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R3Y8U.
METHODS: Qualitative study using one-to-one semi-structured interviews conducted with 22 HCPs involved in the care of diabetic patients (6 endocrinologists, 4 general practitioners, 4 nurses and 8 pharmacists). Participants were recruited through general practices, community pharmacies and a diabetic centre in Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five key themes resulted from the analysis. HCPs generally demonstrated negative perceptions toward CAM, particularly regarding their evidence-based effectiveness and safety. Participants described having limited interactions with diabetic patients regarding CAM use due to HCPs' lack of knowledge about CAM, limited consultation time and strict consultation protocols. Participants perceived convenience as the reason why patients use CAM. They believed many users lacked patience with prescribed medications to deliver favourable clinical outcomes and resorted to CAM use.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs have noted inadequate engagement with diabetic patients regarding CAM due to a lack of knowledge and resources. To ensure the safe use of CAM in diabetes and optimize prescribed treatment outcomes, one must address the communication gap by implementing a flexible consultation protocol and duration. Additionally, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based information should be available to HCPs and diabetic patients.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with MetS attending a university primary care clinic in Selangor, Malaysia. The usability score was measured using a previously translated and validated EMPOWER-SUSTAIN Usability Questionnaire (E-SUQ) with a score of > 68 indicating good usability. Multiple logistic regressions determined the factors associated with its usability.
RESULTS: A total of 391 patients participated in this study. More than half (61.4%) had a good usability score of > 68, with a mean (± SD) usability score of 72.8 (± 16.1). Participants with high education levels [secondary education (AOR 2.46, 95% CI 1.04, 5.83) and tertiary education (AOR 2.49, 95% CI 1.04, 5.96)], those who used the booklet at home weekly (AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.63, 5.33) or daily (AOR 2.73, 95% CI 1.09, 6.85), and those who had social support to use the booklet (AOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.02, 2.64) were significantly associated with good usability of the booklet.
CONCLUSIONS: The usability of the EMPOWER-SUSTAIN Global Cardiovascular Risks Self-Management Booklet© was good among patients with MetS in this primary care clinic, which supports its widespread use as a patient empowerment tool. The findings of this study also suggest that it is vital to encourage daily or weekly use of this booklet at home, with the support of family members. The focus should also be given to those with lower education to improve the usability of this booklet for this group of patients.
METHODS: This research utilised two methods of qualitative research (document review and focus group discussions (FGDs) involving 25 participants from four stakeholders (higher education providers, employers, associations and regulatory bodies). Both deductive and inductive thematic content analysis were used to explore, develop and define emergent codes, examined along with existing knowledge on the subject matter.
RESULTS: Sixteen codes emerged from the FGDs, with risk of harm, set of competency and skills, formal qualification, defined scope of practice, relevant training and professional working within the healthcare team being the six most frequent codes. The frequencies for these six codes were 62, 46, 40, 37, 36 and 18, correspondingly. The risk of harm towards patients was directly or indirectly involved with patient handling and also relates to the potential harms that may implicate the practitioners themselves in performing their responsibilities as the important criterion highlighted in the present research, followed by set of competency and skills.
CONCLUSIONS: For defining the PAH in Malaysia, the emerged criteria appear interrelated and co-exist in milieu, especially for the risk of harm and set of competency and skills, with no single criterion that can define PAH fully. Hence, the integration of all the empirically identified criteria must be considered to adequately define the PAH. As such, the findings must be duly considered by policymakers in performing suitable consolidation of healthcare governance to formulate the appropriate regulations and policies for promoting the enhanced framework of allied health practitioners in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out using a systematic random sampling method in hypertensive patients who attended two government primary care clinics in Sarawak. The STOP-Bang questionnaire was used to screen for OSA, and social-demographic data was captured with a questionnaire. Multiple logistic regressions were used to examine the determinants of the OSA.
RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age of study population patients was 56.4 years, with more than half being female. The mean blood pressure was 136/82. The prevalence of probable OSA among patients with hypertension was 54.4%. According to multiple logistic regression analyses, smoking (odds ratio [OR] 14.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.335-61.947), retirees (OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.675-6.113), and being Chinese (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.262-3.863) had a significant positive association with probable OSA.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high prevalence of probable OSA among patients with hypertension, primary care physicians should be more vigilant in identifying hypertensive patients with OSA risk. Early detection and intervention would reduce disease complications and healthcare costs.
METHODS: Databases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta-analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse-variance random-effects model.
RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty-one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non-chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta-analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non-chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = -1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31, -0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a probable benefit of oil pulling in improving gingival health. Chlorhexidine remained superior in reducing the amount of plaque, compared to oil pulling. However, there was very low certainty in the evidence albeit the clinically beneficial effect of oil pulling intervention.