METHODS: This cross-sectional questionnaire study involved 329 patients with T2DM who received their follow up at a public primary care clinic. Patients were selected via systematic random sampling. Patients self-completed locally adapted versions of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Social Support Survey and Diabetic Management Self Efficacy Scale (DMSES). The scores of both tools were analysed to determine the association and correlation between social support and self-efficacy.
RESULTS: The mean score for overall social support was 72.7±21.40 score range (0-100). "Affectionate support" was rated the highest averaged mean score at 78.31±23.71 (score range: 0-100). The mean DMSES score was 147.6±35.5 (score range :0-200), of which "medications" subscale was rated the highest with averaged mean scores 9.07±1.67 (score range: 0-10). Overall social support and self-efficacy were found to be weakly correlated (r=0.197, p<0.001). However, all subscales of social support were moderately correlated with "medications" subscale of self-efficacy.
CONCLUSION: Social support is significantly associated with patients' self-efficacy in handling their own medications.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study done in a one primary care clinic located in a semi-urban area in Selangor, Malaysia. Simple random sampling was conducted among pregnant women aged 18 years old and above at any gestation. The validated study instruments used consisted of questions on socio-demography, KAP on UI, and also the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form to determine UI among the respondents.
RESULTS: The response rate for this study was 72.1%, where 440 pregnant women consented to take part in the study. The median age of study respondents was 30 years old and majority of the study respondents was from the Malay ethnicity (80.9%). The prevalence of UI was 40.9%. The proportion of pregnant women with good knowledge, attitude and practice scores were 58.0%, 46.6% and 45.2% respectively. There was a significant association between UI and age (p = .03), body mass index (p = .03), ethnicity (p = .04), gravida. (p = .001), knowledge on PFME (p = .007) and attitude towards PFME (p = .006).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study fill a gap in the prevalence and KAP concerning PFME at the primary care level. The foundation areas for future education and health promotion on UI should address the importance of correct PFME. This education can be delivered through a pragmatic way to ensure its effectiveness and sustainability of the health promotion program.
Method: This investigation comprises a cross-sectional descriptive study of all patients visiting two primary care clinics aged 18 years and above. Patients presenting with joint pain answered a questionnaire assessing demographic data, disabilities (measured by the Stanford HAQ-DI), and treatment options.
Results: Of 1,074 patients surveyed, 202 (18.8%) had MSK complaints. The mean age of those with MSK pain was 56.1 years. Incidence increased with age, reaching 78.8% of those over 48 years of age. The knee was the most common site of MSK pain (52.2%), with 20.3% requiring referral for specialist assessment. The median HAQ score was 0.375 and 89.6% of those surveyed had mild disability.
Conclusion: MSK pain is a common problem among patients visiting primary care clinics. The most common site of MSK pain was the knee. On formal assessment, the majority of these patients exhibited mild disability. A significant proportion of patients still required specialist referral. This finding would suggest a need for further training on the management of MSK disease at the primary care level to avoid over-burdening the secondary care services.
Design: Qualitative study using focus group discussions. Participants' responses were audio recorded, transcribed, grouped under various domains and listed out and analysed.
Setting: A private medical college in Perak state, Malaysia.
Participants: Forty-six medical students from years 2 to 5 were included. Eight focus groups were formed with two focus groups from each academic year (six students each in seven groups and four students in one group). Students were informed through their respective student leader of each year and received a participant information sheet and an informed consent form which were completed and returned if they decided to participate in the focus group discussions.
Results: The participants had different levels of understanding of primary care depending on their level of exposure to primary care. Senior students with more exposure had a better understanding about primary care and its services. Attractive factors towards choosing primary care as a career included short working hours with a more balanced family and social life, being able to treat patients as a whole with continuity of care and closer relationship with patients. Unattractive factors included routine, unchallenging and boring practice, poor salary, work overload and administrative work in government clinics, being less recognised by other specialties; and the poor perception by other doctors that those pursuing primary care were not 'brilliant enough' for more 'sophisticated disciplines like surgery or paediatrics'.
Conclusion: This study showed that the medical students' level of exposure to primary care played a crucial role in determining their understanding of primary care practice and their choice of career in primary care. Issues to be addressed include remuneration, workload and the prejudice against primary care as a career pathway. Suggestions included introducing early exposure to fun and challenging primary care postings in the medical curriculum and producing well trained, skilled and enthusiastic role models.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using national administrative data from 1124 public primary care clinics. Eight indicators were selected to measure service utilisation covering antenatal, postnatal, women's health, child health, and immunisation services. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to evaluate changes in levels and trends of indicators during four different periods: pre-pandemic (January 2019-February 2020), during pandemic and first lockdown (March-May 2020), after the first lockdown was lifted (June-December 2020) and after the second lockdown was implemented (January-June 2021).
RESULTS: Most indicators showed no significant trend in monthly utilisation prior to the pandemic. The onset of the pandemic and first lockdown implementation were associated with significant decreasing trends in child health (-19.23%), women's health (-10.12%), antenatal care (-8.10%), contraception (-6.50%), postnatal care (-4.85%) and postnatal care 1-week (-3.52%) indicators. These indicators showed varying degrees of recovery after the first lockdown was lifted. The implementation of the second lockdown caused transient reduction ranging from -11.29% to -25.92% in women's health, contraception, child and two postnatal indicators, but no sustained reducing trend was seen afterwards. Two immunisation indicators appeared unaffected throughout the study period.
CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted MCH services utilisation in Malaysia. While most MCH services were negatively affected by the lockdown implementation with varying degrees of recovery, infant immunisation showed resilience throughout. This highlights the need for a targeted preparedness plan to ensure the resilience of MCH services in future crises.
DESIGN: This longitudinal qualitative study was informed by the Normalisation Process Model and involved audiotaped semi-structured individual interviews with front-line clinicians before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the PIPC intervention. The Framework Method was used in the thematic analysis of pre/post interview transcripts.
SETTING: Two government-operated primary care clinics in Penang, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: 17 primary care medical, nursing and allied health staff recruited purposely to achieve a range of disciplines and a balanced representation from both clinics.
INTERVENTION: Psychiatrists, accompanied by medical students in small numbers, provided one half-day consultation visit per week, to front-line clinicians in each clinic over an 8-month period. The service involved psychiatric assessment of patients with suspected CMDs, with face-to-face discussion with the referring clinician before and after the patient assessment.
RESULTS: At Time 1 interviewees tended to equate CMDs with stress and embraced a holistic model of care while also reporting considerable autonomy in mental healthcare and positively appraising their current practices. At Time 2, post-intervention, participants demonstrated a shift towards greater understanding of CMDs as treatable conditions. They reported time pressures and the demands of key performance indicators in other areas as barriers to participation in PIPC. Yet they showed increased awareness of current service deficits and of their potential in delivering improved mental healthcare.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite resource-related and structural barriers to implementation of national mental health policy in Malaysian primary care settings, our findings suggest that front-line clinicians are receptive to future interventions designed to improve the mental healthcare capacity.
METHODS: A mixed method design was used. Fourth-year medical students participated in a consultation/liaison psychiatry service to two government-operated primary care clinics. Each student attended two half-day consultations to the clinics during the psychiatry clinical clerkship. Students joined in discussions with primary care clinicians, performed supervised clinical assessments, and administered a depression screening instrument. The learning experience was evaluated through four focus groups, each with 9-10 participants, held throughout the academic year. An end-of-year, anonymous, online questionnaire survey was administered to the entire class. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts was performed and quantitative statistics were calculated (Stata version 13).
RESULTS: Focus group themes included the following: (a) active learning opportunities in primary care psychiatry consultation had perceived added educational value, (b) students benefited from contact with patients with previously undiagnosed common mental disorders, and (c) students' primary care experience raised their awareness of societal and professional responsibilities. Of the class of 113 students, 93 (82%) responded to the questionnaire. The survey responses reflected the qualitative themes, with 79 respondents (85%) stating that the learning experience met or exceeded their expectations.
CONCLUSIONS: Academic psychiatry has been criticized for its overreliance on secondary care settings in undergraduate clinical teaching. Our findings suggest that supervised clinical placements in primary care are feasible and provide added educational value as a routine component of the undergraduate psychiatry clinical clerkship.
METHOD: Baseline data from a large study entitled Evaluation of Enhanced Primary Health Care interventions in public health clinics (EnPHC-EVA: Facility) were used in this analysis. Data from 40 public primary care clinics were collected through retrospective chart reviews and a patient exit survey. We calculated the ICCs for processes of care, clinical outcomes and patient experiences in patients with T2D and/or hypertension using the analysis of variance approach.
RESULTS: Patient experience had the highest ICC values compared to processes of care and clinical outcomes. The ICC values ranged from 0.01 to 0.48 for processes of care. Generally, the ICC values for processes of care for patients with hypertension only are higher than those for T2D patients, with or without hypertension. However, both groups of patients have similar ICCs for antihypertensive medications use. In addition, similar ICC values were observed for clinical outcomes, ranging from 0.01 to 0.09. For patient experience, the ICCs were between 0.03 (proportion of patients who are willing to recommend the clinic to their friends and family) and 0.25 (for Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care item 9, Given a copy of my treatment plan).
CONCLUSION: The reported ICCs and their respective 95% confidence intervals for T2D and hypertension will be useful for estimating sample sizes and improving efficiency of cluster trials conducted in the primary care setting, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.
Method: We used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR versus PDC), assessment period (90-day versus 180-day), and HbA1c target (⩽7.0% versus ⩽8.0%).
Results: The optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.
Conclusion: We found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good versus poor medication adherence to be clinically meaningful should be at 90%.