METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilised the QUALICOPC study data on primary care performance, which was conducted in 2011-2013 (QUALICOPC in Europe Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and 2015-2016 (Malaysia). A standardised questionnaire was completed by primary care practitioners from participating countries. Multilevel regression analysis and composite scores were constructed to compare the performance of primary care on four process dimensions: accessibility, comprehensiveness, continuity of care and coordination.
RESULTS: The high-income countries with strong primary care performed better in comprehensiveness, continuity and coordination but poorer in accessibility to services compared with upper-middle-income countries. Among the upper-middle-income countries, Malaysia scored the best in comprehensiveness and coordination. None of the studied countries were having consistent performance over all indicators either in their respective best or worst primary care services delivery dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in primary care services delivery across and within the studied countries. The findings indicate room for quality improvement activities to strengthen primary healthcare services. This includes addressing current healthcare challenges in response to the population health needs which are essential for more integrated and efficient primary care services delivery.
BACKGROUND: Low research participation by primary care doctors, especially those working in the private sector, is a challenge to quality benchmarking.
METHODS: Primary care doctors were sampled through multi-stage sampling. The first stage-sampling unit was the primary care clinics, which were randomly sampled from five states in Malaysia to reflect their proportions in two strata - sector (public/private) and location (urban/rural). Strategies through endorsement, personalised invitation, face-to-face interview and non-monetary incentives were used to recruit public and private doctors. Data collection was carried out by fieldworkers through structured questionnaires.
FINDINGS: A total of 221 public and 239 private doctors participated in the study. Among the public doctors, 99.5% response rates were obtained. Among the private doctors, a 32.8% response rate was obtained. Totally, 30% of private clinics were uncontactable by telephone, and when these were excluded, the overall response rate is 46.8%. The response rate of the private clinics across the states ranges from 31.5% to 34.0%. A total of 167 answered the non-respondent questionnaire. Among the non-respondents, 77.4 % were male and 22.6% female (P = 0.011). There were 33.6% of doctors older than 65 years (P = 0.003) and 15.9% were from the state of Sarawak (P = 0.016) when compared to non-respondents. Reason for non-participation included being too busy (51.8%), not interested (32.9%), not having enough patients (9.1%) and did not find it beneficial (7.9%). Our study demonstrated the feasibility of obtaining favourable response rate in a survey involving doctors from public and private primary care settings.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour towards both acute and preventive physical and psychosocial health concerns by sex, age and type of primary care setting (as a proxy for affordability of healthcare).
METHODS: A total of 3979 patients from 221 public and 239 private clinics in Malaysia were interviewed between June 2015 and February 2016 using a patient experience survey questionnaire from the Quality and Cost of Primary Care cross-sectional study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for the complex survey design was used.
RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, more women than men perceived that most people would see their general practitioners for commonly consulted acute and preventive physical and some psychosocial health concerns such as stomach pain (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-2.21), sprained ankle (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.56), anxiety (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55), domestic violence (AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.62) and relationship problems (AOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51). There were no significant differences in perceived healthcare seeking behaviour by age groups except for the removal of a wart (AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.76). Patients who visited the public clinics had generally higher perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour for both acute and preventive physical and psychosocial health concerns compared to those who went to private clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that sex and healthcare affordability differences were present in perceived community healthcare seeking behaviour towards primary care services. Also perceived healthcare seeking behaviour were consistently lower for psychosocial health concerns compared to physical health concerns.
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: This was a quasi-experimental controlled study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 control public primary care clinics in Malaysia from November 2016 to June 2019. Type 2 diabetes patients aged 30 years and above were selected via systematic random sampling. Outcomes include process of care and intermediate clinical outcomes. Difference-in-differences analyses was conducted.
RESULTS: We reviewed 12,017 medical records of patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven process of care measures improved: HbA1c tests (odds ratio (OR) 3.31, 95% CI 2.13, 5.13); lipid test (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.64, 7.97), LDL (OR 4.33, 95% CI 2.16, 8.70), and urine albumin (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.12, 3.55) tests; BMI measured (OR 15.80, 95% CI 4.78, 52.24); cardiovascular risk assessment (OR 174.65, 95% CI 16.84, 1810.80); and exercise counselling (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04, 1.33). We found no statistically significant changes in intermediate clinical outcomes (i.e. HbA1c, LDL, HDL and BP control).
CONCLUSIONS: EnPHC interventions was successful in enhancing the quality of care, in terms of process of care, by changing healthcare providers behaviour.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted between April and May 2017.
SETTING: Forty public clinics in Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 956 adult patients with T2D and/or hypertension were interviewed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient experience on SMS was evaluated using a structured questionnaire of the short version Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument, PACIC-M11. Linear regression analysis adjusting for complex survey design was used to determine the association of patient and clinic factors with PACIC-M11 scores.
RESULTS: The overall PACIC-M11 mean was 2.3(SD,0.8) out of maximum of 5. The subscales' mean scores were lowest for patient activation (2.1(SD,1.1)) and highest for delivery system design/decision support (2.9(SD,0.9)). Overall PACIC-M11 score was associated with age, educational level and ethnicity. Higher overall PACIC-M11 ratings was observed with increasing difference between actual and expected consultation duration [β = 0.01; 95% CI (0.001, 0.03)]. Better scores were also observed among patients who would recommend the clinic to friends and family [β = 0.19; 95% CI (0.03, 0.36)], when health providers were able to explain things in ways that were easy to understand [β = 0.34; 95% CI (0.10, 0.59)] and knew about patients' living conditions [β = 0.31; 95% CI (0.15, 0.47)].
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated patients received low levels of SMS. PACIC-M11 ratings were associated with age, ethnicity, educational level, difference between actual and expected consultation length, willingness to recommend the clinic and provider communication skills.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 13 784 medical records from 20 selected public primary care clinics in Malaysia was performed for patients aged ≥30 years old who were diagnosed with hypertension and had at least one visit between 1st November 2016 and 30th June 2019. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for complex survey design was used to determine the association between process of care and blood pressure (BP) control among the hypertensive patients.
RESULTS: Approximately 50% of hypertensive patients were obese, 38.4% of age ≥65 years old, 71.2% had at least one comorbidity and approximately one-third were on antihypertensive monotherapy. Approximately two-third of the hypertensive patients with diabetic proteinuria were prescribed with the appropriate choice of antihypertensive agents. Approximately half of the patients received at least 70% of the target indicated care and 42.8% had adequately controlled BP. After adjusting for covariates, patients who received counseling on exercise were positively associated with adequate BP control. Conversely, patients who were prescribed with two or more antihypertensive agents were negatively associated with good BP control.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that BP control was suboptimal and deficient in the process of care with consequent gaps in guidelines and actual clinical practices. This warrants a re-evaluation of the current strategies and approaches to improve the quality of hypertension management and ultimately to improve outcome.
AIM: To assess the diabetes empowerment scores and its correlated factors among type 2 diabetes patients in a primary care clinic in Malaysia.
METHODS: This is a cross sectional study involving 322 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) followed up in a primary care clinic. Systematic sampling method was used for patient recruitment. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale (DES) questionnaire was used to measure patient empowerment. It consists of three domains: (1) Managing the psychosocial aspect of diabetes (9 items); (2) Assessing dissatisfaction and readiness to change (9 items); and (3) Setting and achieving diabetes goal (10 items). A score was considered high if it ranged from 100 to 140. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25 and multiple linear regressions was used to identify the predictors of total diabetes empowerment scores.
RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 55 years old. 56% were male and the mean duration of diabetes was 4 years. The total median score of the DES was 110 [interquartile range (IQR) = 10]. The median scores of the three subscales were 40 with (IQR = 4) for "Managing the psychosocial aspect of diabetes"; 36 with (IQR = 3) for "Assessing dissatisfaction and readiness to change"; and 34 with (IQR = 5) for "Setting and achieving diabetes goal". According to multiple linear regressions, factors that had significant correlation with higher empowerment scores among type 2 diabetes patients included an above secondary education level (P < 0.001), diabetes education exposure (P = 0.003), lack of ischemic heart disease (P = 0.017), and lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Diabetes empowerment scores were high among type 2 diabetes patients in this study population. Predictors for high empowerment scores included above secondary education level, diabetes education exposure, lack of ischemic heart disease status and lower HbA1c.