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.
Method: This investigation was a cross-sectional study carried out during centralized workshops for two groups of trainees using a validated questionnaire: (i) junior trainees were newly enrolled postgraduate trainees in the Graduate Certificate in Family Medicine (GCFM) program, and (ii) senior trainees were postgraduate trainees in Advance Training in Family Medicine (ATFM) programs of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia (AFPM).
Results: A total of 223 trainees (127 junior and 96 senior) participated in this study. Only 55.2% of the trainees passed the knowledge test; senior trainees were more likely to pass the knowledge test compared to junior trainees (69.8% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.001). Female trainees were significantly more likely to pass the knowledge test than male trainees. While the attitude of senior and junior trainees was similar, more of the latter group worked in public clinic that provide better support where there is better support for outpatient anticoagulation treatment (e.g., same-day INR test, direct access echocardiogram, and warfarin in in-house pharmacy).
Conclusion: Vocational training in family medicine appears to improve primary care physicians' knowledge regarding the management of AF. Better knowledge will help vocationally trained primary care physicians to provide anticoagulation treatment for AF within primary care clinics. More optimal AF management within primary care can take place if the identified barriers are addressed and a shared care plan can be implemented.