METHODS: We included studies which used conversation analysis or discourse analysis to study recorded interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. We followed an aggregative thematic synthesis approach. This involved line-by-line coding of the results and discussion sections of included studies, and the inductive development and hierarchical grouping of descriptive themes. Top-level themes were organised to reflect their conversational positioning.
RESULTS: Of the 17,562 studies identified through systematic searching, ten papers were included. Analysis resulted in 10 top-level descriptive themes grouped into three domains: initiating; carrying out; and closing health behaviour change talk. Of three methods of initiation, two facilitated further discussion, and one was associated with outright resistance. Of two methods of conducting behaviour change talk, one was associated with only minimal patient responses. One way of closing was identified, and patients did not seem to respond to this positively. Results demonstrated a series of specific conversational practices which clinicians use when talking about HBC, and how patients respond to these. Our results largely complemented clinical guidelines, providing further detail on how they can best be delivered in practice. However, one recommended practice - linking a patient's health concerns and their health behaviours - was shown to receive variable responses and to often generate resistance displays.
CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviour change talk is smoothly initiated, conducted, and terminated by clinicians and this rarely causes interactional difficulty. However, initiating conversations by linking a person's current health concern with their health behaviour can lead to resistance to advice, while other strategies such as capitalising on patient initiated discussions, or collaborating through question-answer sequences, may be well received.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.
RESULTS: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.
METHODS: A pragmatic healthcentre-based cluster randomised controlled trial-within trial on 151 post stroke patients from 10 public primary care facilities in Peninsular Malaysia was conducted to evaluate QALY of patients managed with iCaPPS© (n = 86) vs conventional care (n = 65) for 6 months. Costs from societal perspective were calculated, using combination of top down and activity-based costing methods. The 5-level EQ5D (EQ-5D-5 L) was used to calculate health state utility scores. Cost per QALY and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were determined. Differences within groups were determined using Mann-Whitney tests.
RESULTS: Total costs for 6 months treatment with iCaPPS© was MYR790.34, while conventional care cost MYR527.22. Median QALY for iCaPPS© was 0.55 (0,1.65) compared to conventional care 0.32 (0, 0.73) (z = - 0.21, p = 0.84). Cost per QALY for iCaPPS© was MYR1436.98, conventional care was MYR1647.56. The ICER was MYR1144.00, equivalent to 3.7% of per capita GDP (2012 prices).
CONCLUSIONS: Management of post stroke patients in the community using iCaPPS© costs less per QALY compared to current conventional care and is very cost effective.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration number ACTRN12616001322426. Registered 21 September 2016. (Retrospectively registered).
METHODS: A total of 387 patients were recruited from a public primary care clinic in Singapore. Data on their socio-demography, clinical and functional status, levels of physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire) and frailty status was collected. The Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) criteria were used to define sarcopenia based on muscle mass, grip strength and gait speed.
RESULTS: The study population comprised men (53%), Chinese (69%), mean age = 68.3 ± SD5.66 years, lived in public housing (90%), had hypertension (88%) and dyslipidemia (96%). Their mean muscle mass was 6.3 ± SD1.2 kg/m2; mean gait speed was 1.0 ± SD0.2 m/s and mean grip strength was 25.5 ± SD8.1 kg. Overall, 30% had pre-sarcopenia, 24% with sarcopenia and 4% with severe sarcopenia. Age (OR = 1.14; 95%CI = 1.09-1.20;p
METHODS: We used data from The National Medical Care Survey (NMCS), a national cross-sectional survey of patients' visits to primary care clinics in Malaysia. A weighted total of 22,832 encounters of patients aged ≥65 years were analysed. Polypharmacy was defined as concomitant use of five medications and above. Multilevel logistic regression was performed to examine the association of polypharmacy with patient, prescriber and practice characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 20.3% of the older primary care attenders experienced polypharmacy (26.7%% in public and 11.0% in private practice). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of polypharmacy were 6.37 times greater in public practices. Polypharmacy was associated with patients of female gender (OR 1.49), primary education level (OR 1.61) and multimorbidity (OR 14.21). The variation in rate of polypharmacy was mainly found at prescriber level.
CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy is common among older persons visiting primary care practices. Given the possible adverse outcomes, interventions to reduce the burden of polypharmacy are best to be directed at individual prescribers.
METHODS: A total of 207 elderly patients aged 60 years and above with chronic diseases attending a university-based primary care clinic were recruited via a systematic randomised sampling method from the clinic patient attendance registry. Respondents were assessed using self-administered online questionnaires distributed via mobile devices. The questionnaire assessed awareness, i.e. ability to correctly answer a self-reported questionnaire on basic dementia knowledge; (adapted from Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2010), risk of MCI; (using Towards Useful Aging (TUA)-WELLNESS screening questionnaire) and help-seeking behaviour. Bivariate analysis was used to determine factors associated with dementia awareness.
RESULTS: The response rate was 77.1%, with the majority of participants were females, Chinese and had secondary school education. 39.1% of participants were categorised as high risk of developing MCI. The majority (92.8%) had low dementia awareness and had never shared their concerns regarding dementia (93.2%) nor had any discussion (87.0%) on cognitive impairment with their physicians. Three factors had an association with total dementia awareness score, i.e., younger age group, higher risk of MCI and presence of cardiovascular diseases have significantly lower awareness score (p care doctors engaging with at-risk elderly patients to initiate discussion regarding dementia risk while managing modifiable risk factors i.e. hypertension control, diabetes, dyslipidaemia and obesity.
METHOD: A structured educational intervention was provided to older adults who visited the primary care setting in Gemas and provided written informed consent to participate in the study. A total of 310 older adult patients was included in the study using a convenience sampling technique.
RESULTS: Before the intervention, 74.84% of the respondents (n = 232) agreed that falls and related fractures are the leading causes of hospital admission among older adults. In post-intervention, the number of respondents who agreed with this statement increased to 257 (82.91%). At baseline, 28 respondents (9.03%) had poor knowledge, 160 respondents (51.61%) had average knowledge levels, and 122 respondents (39.35%) had good knowledge. In post-intervention, respondents with poor and average knowledge reduced to 1.93% (n = 6) and 29.35% (n = 91) respectively. A majority of respondents' knowledge levels improved significantly after the intervention (n = 213; 68.71%). About eight respondents (2.58%) had a negative perception of falls. In post-intervention, the percentage reduced to 0.65% as only two respondents had a negative perception. A total of 32 types of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) have been prescribed to the respondents. A strong correlation (r = 0.89) between pre- and post-intervention knowledge was shown among the respondents. Paired t-test analysis showed a statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSION: The pharmacist-led educational intervention significantly improved the knowledge, attitude, and perception of falls among older adults. More structured and periodical intervention programmes are warranted to reduce the risk of falls and fractures among older adults.
METHODS: A multi-national cross-sectional survey was performed among SEANERN countries. A 1-5 Likert scale was used to measure eight components of knowledge, ability, and skill of PHC providers. Descriptive statistics were employed, and radar charts were used to depict the levels of the three dimensions (knowledge, skill and ability) and eight components.
RESULTS: Totally, 606 valid questionnaires from PHC providers were returned from seven countries of SEANERN (China, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia), with a responsive rate of 97.6% (606/621). For the three dimensions the ranges of total mean scores were distributed as follows: knowledge dimension: 2.78~3.11; skill dimension: 2.66~3.16; ability dimension: 2.67~3.06. Furthermore, radar charts revealed that the transition of PHC provider's knowledge into skill and from skill into ability decreased gradually. Their competencies in four areas, including safe water and sanitation, nutritional promotion, endemic diseases prevention, and essential provision of drugs, were especially low.
CONCLUSIONS: The general capacity perceived by PHC providers themselves seems relatively low and imbalanced. To address the problem, SEANERN, through the collaboration of the members, can facilitate the appropriate education and training of PHC providers by developing feasible, practical and culturally appropriate training plans.
METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 matched control clinics. We surveyed all HCPs who were directly involved in patient management. A self-administered questionnaire which included six questions on job satisfaction were assessed on a scale of 1-4 at baseline (April and May 2017) and post-intervention phase (March and April 2019). Unadjusted intervention effect was calculated based on absolute differences in mean scores between intervention and control groups after implementation. Difference-in-differences analysis was used in the multivariable linear regression model and adjusted for providers and clinics characteristics to detect changes in job satisfaction following EnPHC interventions. A negative estimate indicates relative decrease in job satisfaction in the intervention group compared with control group.
RESULTS: A total of 1042 and 1215 HCPs responded at baseline and post-intervention respectively. At post-intervention, the intervention group reported higher level of stress with adjusted differences of - 0.139 (95% CI -0.266,-0.012; p = 0.032). Nurses, being the largest workforce in public clinics were the only group experiencing dissatisfaction at post-intervention. In subgroup analysis, nurses from intervention group experienced increase in work stress following EnPHC interventions with adjusted differences of - 0.223 (95% CI -0.419,-0.026; p = 0.026). Additionally, the same group were less likely to perceive their profession as well-respected at post-intervention (β = - 0.175; 95% CI -0.331,-0.019; p = 0.027).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that EnPHC interventions had resulted in some untoward effect on HCPs' job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction can have detrimental effects on the organisation and healthcare system. Therefore, provider experience and well-being should be considered before introducing healthcare delivery reforms to avoid overburdening of HCPs.
METHOD: This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.
RESULTS: The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains-intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics-that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.
CONCLUSION: Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers' receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics' setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.
METHODS: This is a 10-year retrospective cohort study of 460 patients with hypertension who were on treatment. Patient information was collected from patient records. CKD was defined as a glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (Cockcroft-Gault equation). Multiple logistic regression statistics was used to test the association in newly diagnosed CKD.
RESULTS: The incidence of new CKD was 30.9% (n = 142) with an annual rate of 3%. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors associated with development of new onset of CKD among hypertensive patients were older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.123, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.078-1.169), presence of diabetes (OR 2.621, 95% CI 1.490-4.608), lower baseline eGFR (OR 1.041, 95% CI 0.943-0.979) and baseline hyperuricaemia (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001-1.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The progression to new onset CKD is high among urban multiethnic hypertensive patients in a primary care population. Hence every effort is needed to detect the presence of new onset CKD earlier. Hypertensive patients who are older, with underlying diabetes, hyperuricaemia and lower baseline eGFR are associated with the development of CKD in this population.
METHODS: A parallel, open-label, 2-arm prospective, pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted at a long-term stroke service at a university based primary care clinic. All stroke caregivers aged ≥ 18 years, proficient in English or Malay and smartphone operation were invited. From 147 eligible caregivers, 76 participants were randomised to either SRA™ intervention or conventional care group (CCG) after receiving standard health counselling. The intervention group had additional SRA™ installed on their smartphones, which enabled self-monitoring of modifiable and non-modifiable stroke risk factors. The Stroke Riskometer app (SRATM) and Life's Simple 7 (LS7) questionnaires assessed stroke risk and lifestyle practices. Changes in clinical profile, lifestyle practices and calculated stroke risk were analysed at baseline and 3 months. The trial was registered in the Australia-New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618002050235.
RESULTS: The demographic and clinical characteristics of the intervention and control group study participants were comparable. Better improvement in LS7 scores were noted in the SRA™ arm compared to CCG at 3 months: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.88 (1.68-0.08), p = 0.03. However, both groups did not show significant changes in median stroke risk and relative risk scores at 5-, 10-years (Stroke risk 5-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.53 (0.15-1.21), p = 0.13, 10-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.53-2.15), p = 0.23; Relative risk 5-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.84 (0.29-1.97), p = 0.14, Relative risk 10-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.58 (0.36-1.52), p = 0.23).
CONCLUSION: SRA™ is a useful tool for familial stroke caregivers to make lifestyle changes, although it did not reduce personal or relative stroke risk after 3 months usage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: No: ACTRN12618002050235 (Registration Date: 21st December 2018).
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among patients and primary care trainees (known henceforth as doctors). Patients aged ≥ 60 years, having ≥ 1 chronic disease and prescribed ≥ 5 medications and could communicate in either English or Malay were recruited. Doctors and patients were purposively sampled based on their stage of training as family medicine specialists and ethnicity, respectively. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach was used to analyse data.
RESULTS: Twenty-four in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patients and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with 23 doctors were conducted. Four themes emerged: understanding the concept of deprescribing, the necessity to perform deprescribing, concerns regarding deprescribing and factors influencing deprescribing. Patients were receptive to the idea of deprescribing when the term was explained to them, whilst doctors had a good understanding of deprescribing. Both patients and doctors would deprescribe when the necessity outweighed their concerns. Factors that influenced deprescribing were doctor-patient rapport, health literacy among patients, external influences from carers and social media, and system challenges.
CONCLUSION: Deprescribing was deemed necessary by both patients and doctors when there was a reason to do so. However, both doctors and patients were afraid to deprescribe as they 'didn't want to rock the boat'. Early-career doctors were reluctant to deprescribe as they felt compelled to continue medications that were initiated by another specialist. Doctors requested more training on how to deprescribe medications.