METHODS: This narrative systematic review addressed MSAs targeted to MMPs in Myanmar for malaria prevention. We searched relevant studies in electronic databases and present the narrative findings in 4 domains: stakeholder groups, net coverage and utilization, social determinates, and facilitators/barriers.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included. The review identified stakeholders involved in intersectoral collaboration. Net ownership was higher than utilization rates in the MARC zones and rates remained below the WHO recommended target of 100%. There was inadequate description of roles and responsibilities for implementation and on channels of communication within the partnerships and with the Government.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that interventions to distribute treated bed nets were supported by the multiple stakeholders. Due to the design of the primary studies, analysis of the added value of intersectoral collaboration was limited. More attention must be paid to designing studies to document and evaluate the contributions and outcomes of intersectoral collaboration.
METHODS: A questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to members of AOSpine to evaluate their familiarity and use of PROMs instruments and to assess the barriers to their use in spine care practice in LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME.
RESULTS: A total of 1634 AOSpine members from LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME answered the electronic questionnaire. The percentage of spine surgeons who were familiar with the generic health-related quality of life questionnaire was 71.7%. In addition, 31.9% of respondents did not use any PROMs routinely. The main barriers to implementing PROMs were lack of time to administer the questionnaires (57%) followed by lack of staff to assist in data collection (55%), and the long time to fill out the questionnaires (46%). The routine use of questionnaires was more frequent in NA and EU and less common in LA and ME (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that 31.9% of spine surgeons do not use the PROMs questionnaire routinely. This appears to occur because of lack of knowledge regarding their importance, absence of reimbursement for this extra work, minimal financial support for clinical research, the cost of implementation, and lack of concern among physicians.
METHODS: A cross-sectional community-based study was conducted on 551 participants from five local government areas in Kano State. Blood samples were collected and examined for the presence of Plasmodium species by rapid diagnostic test (RDT), Giemsa-stained thin and thick blood films, and PCR. Moreover, demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental information as well as KAP data were collected using a pre-tested questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 334 (60.6 %) participants were found positive for Plasmodium falciparum. The prevalence differed significantly by age group (p health education regarding the importance of using ITNs to prevent malaria and save lives should be considered.
METHODS: A series of qualitative interviews were conducted with policy makers and healthcare providers in four vivax-endemic countries. Routine G6PD testing is not part of current policy in Bangladesh, Cambodia or China, but it is in Malaysia. The interviews were analysed with regard to respondents perceptions of vivax malaria, -primaquine based treatment for malaria and the complexities of G6PD deficiency.
RESULTS: Three barriers to the roll-out of routine G6PD testing were identified in all sites: (a) a perceived low risk of drug-induced haemolysis; (b) the perception that vivax malaria was benign and accordingly treatment with primaquine was not regarded as a priority; and, (c) the additional costs of introducing routine testing. In Malaysia, respondents considered the current test and treat algorithm suitable and the need for an alternative approach was only considered relevant in highly mobile and hard to reach populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to increase awareness of the benefits of the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax and this should be supported by economic analyses exploring the cost effectiveness of routine G6PD testing.
METHODS: The theoretical framework of this module was founded from the Health Belief Model (HBM). The participants were assessed using 6-item pre- and post-test questionnaires that measured some of the known HBM constructs namely cues to action, perceived severity and perceived benefit. Data was analysed using PASW Statistics 18.0.
RESULTS: The pre- and post-test questionnaires were administered to 88 participants (31 males). In general, there was a significant increase in the total score in post-test (97.34 ± 6.13%) compared to pre-test (92.80 ± 12.83%) (p 85%) at post-test (84.1%) compared to pre-test (70.5%) (p
RESEARCH DESIGN: Data from two previous qualitative studies, the Front-line Equitable Evidence-based Decision Making in Medicine and Creating, Synthesising and Implementing evidence-based medicine (EBM) in primary care studies, were sorted, arranged, classified and compared with the help of qualitative research software, NVivo V.10. Data categories were interrogated through comparison between and within datasets to identify similarities and differences in rural and urban practices. Themes were then refined by removing or recoding redundant and infrequent nodes into major key themes.
PARTICIPANTS: There were 55 primary care physicians who participated in 10 focus group discussions (n=31) and 9 individual physician in-depth interviews.
SETTING: The study was conducted across three primary care settings-an academic primary care practice and both private and public health clinics in rural (Pahang) and urban (Selangor and Kuala Lumpur) settings in Malaysia.
RESULTS: We identified five major themes that influenced the implementation of EBM according to practice settings, namely, workplace factors, EBM understanding and awareness, work experience and access to specialist placement, availability of resources and patient population. Lack of standardised care is a contributing factor to differences in EBM practice, especially in rural areas.
CONCLUSIONS: There were major differences in the practice of EBM between rural and urban primary care settings. These findings could be used by policy-makers, administrators and the physicians themselves to identify strategies to improve EBM practices that are targeted according to workplace settings.