METHODS: A cross-sectional study of consecutive adults in a primary healthcare setting was conducted. Differences in epidemiology, and HRQOL of common FGIDs (functional dyspepsia [FD], irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], functional diarrhea, functional constipation [FC]) between the Rome III and IV criteria were explored.
RESULTS: Among a total of 1002 subjects recruited, the frequency of common FGIDs was 20.7% and 20.9% among subjects based on the Rome III and Rome IV criteria, respectively. The frequency of IBS reduced from 4.0% (Rome III) to 0.8% (Rome IV), while that of functional diarrhea increased from 1.2% (Rome III) to 3.3% (Rome IV). In contrast, there was no significant change in the frequency of FD (7.5% [Rome III] vs 7.6% [Rome IV]) and FC (10.5% [Rome III] vs 11.7% [Rome IV]). Most of the Rome III IBS subjects (52.5%, n = 21) who did not meet Rome IV IBS criteria, fulfilled the criteria for FC, functional diarrhea, FD, or overlap syndrome. Subjects with all FGIDs, regardless of criteria, had more healthcare utilization and lower HRQOL compared to non-FGID controls.
CONCLUSIONS: The Rome IV criteria alter the frequency of IBS and functional diarrhea, but not FD and FC, when compared to the Rome III criteria. Regardless of criteria, FGIDs had a significant impact on healthcare burden and HRQOL.
METHODS: A systematic search with Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google scholar, and PubMed was conducted. Studies conducted in patients with STEMI presented to non PCI-capable settings and compared fibrinolytic injection with no injection before referring patients to PCI-capable settings were included. The primary outcome was the composite outcomes of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model.
RESULTS: Of 912 articles, three RCTs and three non-RCTs were included. Based on RCTs, fibrinolytic injection before the referral has failed to decrease MACEs compared to non-fibrinolytic injection [relative risk (RR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89-1.57, p = 0.237]. Fibrinolytic injection has also failed to decrease mortality, re-infarction, and ischemic stroke. On the other hand, fibrinolytic injection was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: In non PCI-capable settings, fibrinolytic injection before referring patients with STEMI to PCI-capable settings has no clinical benefit but could increase risk of major bleeding. Clinicians might more carefully consider whether fibrinolytic injection should be used in patients with STEMI before the referral.
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.
METHODS: A retrospective case-note analysis was conducted on a cohort of 3935 patients attending primary care at the University Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia from February 2012 till May 2014 with URTI symptoms. Demographics, clinical characteristics, medical and vaccination history were obtained from electronic medical records, and mortality data from the National Registration Department. Comparisons were made between those aged <25, ≥25 to <65 and ≥65 years.
RESULTS: 470 (11.9%) had PCR-confirmed influenza virus infection. Six (1.3%) received prior influenza vaccination. Those aged ≥65 years were more likely to have ≥2 comorbidities (P care admission or death within a year compared to 10% in the ≥25 to <65 years. Age ≥65 years was an independent predictor of hospitalization and death (OR = 9.97; 95% CI = 3.11-31.93) compared to those aged <25 years.
CONCLUSION: Older patients in our cohort were more likely to have comorbidities and present with atypical features, with older age being an independent predictor of poor health outcomes. Our findings will now inform future health policies on older persons and economic modelling of adult vaccination programmes.
METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental research with prepost test design with control group involving 81 participants per group from two health clinics in Sepang. The primary outcome was a change in the haemoglobin levels following educational intervention. Secondary outcomes include knowledge on anaemia, Health Belief Model (HBM) constructs, dietary iron intake and compliance towards iron supplementation. The intervention group received a HBMbased education intervention programme.
RESULTS: The response rate in the intervention and control group were 83.9% and 82.7% respectively. Generalised estimating equations analysis showed that the intervention was effective in improving the mean haemoglobin level (β=0.75, 95%CI=0.52, 0.99, p<0.001), the knowledge score (β=1.42, 95%CI=0.36, 2.49, p=0.009), perceived severity score (β=2.2, 95%CI= 1.02, 3.39, p<0.001) and increased proportion of high compliance level (AOR=4.59, 95%CI=1.58, 13.35, p=0.005).
CONCLUSION: HBM-based health education programme has proven to be effective in improving the haemoglobin levels, knowledge scores, perceived severity scores and compliance level of participants. The study results emphasized on the effectiveness of such an approach, therefore it is recommended that future educational interventions which aim at increasing preventive healthy behaviours in pregnant women may benefit from the application of this model in primary health care settings.
Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 196 parents who attended primary health care facilities in suburban Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire was given to assess decision-making styles and factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding practices. Systematic random sampling was used for the non-exclusive breastfeeding group, and convenience sampling was used for the exclusive breastfeeding group. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the associated factors for exclusive breastfeeding practices.
Results: We found an association between the mutual decision of parents on exclusive breastfeeding and exclusive breastfeeding practices. Previous exclusive breastfeeding experience, fathers' ages, mothers' occupations and mutual decisions had significant impact on exclusive breastfeeding practices.
Conclusion: The important determinant for practising exclusive breastfeeding is parents' mutual decisions. Therefore, practitioners need to continuously educate and emphasize the fathers' role in the breastfeeding process.
METHODS: The HomeSat subscale of the Dutch SASC-19 questionnaire (11 items) underwent back-to-back translation to produce a Malay language version. Content validation was done by Family Medicine Specialists involved in community post-stroke care. Community social support services in the original questionnaire were substituted with equivalent local services to ensure contextual relevance. Internal consistency reliability was determined using Cronbach alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was done to validate the factor structure of the Malay version of the questionnaire (SASC10-My™). The SASC10-My™ was then tested on 175 post-stroke patients who were recruited at ten public primary care healthcentres across Peninsular Malaysia, in a trial-within a trial study.
RESULTS: One item from the original Dutch SASC19 (HomeSat) was dropped. Internal consistency for remaining 10 items was high (Cronbach alpha 0.830). Exploratory factor analysis showed the SASC10-My™ had 2 factors: discharge transition and social support services after discharge. The mean total score for SASC10-My™ was 10.74 (SD 7.33). Overall, only 18.2% were satisfied with outpatient stroke care services (SASC10-My™ score ≥ 20). Detailed analysis revealed only 10.9% of respondents were satisfied with discharge transition services, while only 40.9% were satisfied with support services after discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: The SASC10-My™ questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to measure caregiver or patient satisfaction with outpatient stroke care services in the Malaysian healthcare setting. Studies linking discharge protocol patterns and satisfaction with outpatient stroke care services should be conducted to improve care delivery and longer-term outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: No.: ACTRN12616001322426 (Registration Date: 21st September 2016.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study from 4 primary care clinics where 240 patients aged >60 years and their caregivers were enrolled. Patients were assigned to a nurse or a health care assistant (HCA) for 2 separate PFFS-M assessments administered by HCPs of the same profession, as well as by a doctor during the first visit (inter-rater reliability). Patients were also administered the Self-Assessed Report of Personal Capacity & Healthy Ageing (SEARCH) tool, a 40-item frailty index, by a research officer. The correlation between patients' PFFS-M scores and SEARCH tool scores determined convergent validity. Patients returned 1 week later for PFFS-M reassessment by the same HCPs (test-retest reliability). Caregivers completed the PFFS-M for the patient at both clinic visits. Classification cut-points for the PFFS-M were derived against frailty categories defined through the SEARCH tool.
RESULTS: The inter-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93)] and test-retest (ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.95]) reliability between all raters was excellent, including by patients' education levels. The convergent validity was moderate (r = 0.637, p < 0.001), including for varying educational background. PFFS-M categories were identified as: 0-3, no frailty; 4-5, at risk of frailty; 6-8, mild frailty; 9-12, moderate frailty; and >13, severe frailty.
CONCLUSION: PFFS-M is a reliable and valid tool with frailty severity scores now established for use of this tool in primary care clinics.