METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among the patients admitted to the medical and surgical wards in a public hospital located in Brunei Darussalam between February 2022 and April 2022. Hospitalized adults above 18 years old with regular medications with a minimum length of stay of 48 h and a maximum length of stay of 21 days were included in the study. These eligible patients were divided into a POM group and a non-POM group. The economic analysis of using POM was performed by calculating the direct cost per unit of medication used during admission (from unit-use, ward stock and POM) and comparing the cost spent for both groups. Expired ward stock deemed as medication wastage was determined. Medical research ethics were approved, and all participating patients had given their written informed consent before enrolling in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 112 patients aged 63.2 ± 15.8 years participated in this study. The average cost of medication supplied by the inpatient pharmacy for the non-POM group was USD 21.60 ± 34.20 per patient, whereas, for the POM group, it was approximately USD 13.00 ± 18.30 per patient, with a mean difference of USD 8.60 ± 5.17 per patient (95% CI: -3.95, 27.47, p ≥ 0.05). The use of POM minimized 54.03% (USD 625.04) of the total cost spent by the hospital for the POM group within the period of the study.
CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that the supplied medication cost per patient was not significantly different between the POM and non-POM groups. Nevertheless, the utilization of POM during hospitalization is capable of reducing at least 50% of the total cost spent on inpatient medications by the hospital. The use of POM during hospitalization also helped in reducing the total time spent on the medication process per patient.
METHODS: The data were obtained from the National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS) which was conducted from September to October 2020. A cross-sectional survey with five structured questionnaires using the method of computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) was used to collect data. The socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, marital status, educational level, and occupation were recorded. Data were analysed using STATA SE Version 16. Associations between variables were tested using chi-square and logistic regression, with the level of statistical significance set at p
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.