METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a qualitative analysis of stakeholder views towards salt reduction. Participants will be recruited from five zones of Malaysia (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern regions and East Malaysia), including policy-makers, non-governmental organisations, food industries, school canteen operators, street food vendors and consumers, to participate in focus group discussions or in-depth interviews. Interviews will be transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Barriers will be identified and used to develop a tailored salt reduction strategy.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Research Ethics Committee (UKM PPI/1118/JEP-2020-524), the Malaysian National Medical Research Ethics Committee (NMRR-20-1387-55481 (IIR)) and Queen Mary University of London Research Ethics Committee (QMERC2020/37) . Results will be presented orally and in report form and made available to the relevant ministries for example, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Trade to encourage adoption of strategy as policy. The findings of this study will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and webinars.
METHODS: This qualitative exploration study. All healthcare providers who were involved in EnPHC at the intervention clinics were selected as participants. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were carried out among healthcare providers working in the intervention clinic. Thematic analysis was used to categorize data, based on the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) theoretical framework domains.
RESULTS: A total of 61 healthcare providers participated. All 5 domains with 19 CFIR constructs emerged from the analysis. Inner setting played a significant role in facilitating CC intervention, in which culture, networking, and collaboration and leadership engagement played an essential role in supporting CC activities. Although CC tasks are complex, concerns of losing clinical skill and resource constraints were identified as potential barriers in CC implementations. Criteria for appointing new CCs emerged from the characteristics of individual constructs, in which the individual must be familiar and interested in community health, have good communication skills, and at least 3 years' experience in the primary healthcare setting.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of the CC intervention faces varying challenges in different settings. This is partially resolved through teamwork, guidance from mentors, and support from superiors. The complexity of the responsibility of the CC intervention is perceived as both a validation and a burden. Above all, it is seen as paramount in EnPHC intervention.
METHODS: The study applied mixed-method embedded design to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative approach was used to evaluate sustainability perception from 20 intervention clinics via self-reported assessment form whereas qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interview (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGDs) 14 health care professionals participated in IDI session and were either care coordinators, liaison officers (LOs)/clinic managers, or medical officers-in-charge for the clinic's intervention. Nine FGDs conducted comprised 58 HCPs from various categories.
RESULTS: HCPs from all the 20 clinics involved responded to each listed Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) intervention components as being implemented but the perceived sustainability of these implementation varies between them. Quantitative feedback showed sustainable interventions included risk stratification, non-communicable disease (NCD) screening form, referral within clinics and hospitals, family health team (FHT), MTAC services and mechanisms and medical adherence status. Qualitative feedback highlighted implementation of each intervention components comes with its challenges, and most of it are related to inadequate resources and facilities in clinic. HCPs made initiatives to adapt based on clinical setting to implement the interventions at best level possible, whereby this seems to be one of the core values for sustainability.
CONCLUSION: Overall perceptions among HCPs on sustainability of EnPHC interventions are highly influenced by current experiences with existing resources. Components perceived to have inadequate resources are seen as a challenge to sustain. It's crucial for stakeholders to understand implications affecting implementation process if concerns raised are not addressed and allocation of needed resources to ensure overall successfulness and long term sustainability.
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 semistructured interview study was conducted among 17 patients and 18 pharmacists in three tertiary hospitals in Malaysia. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Themes were developed using a constant comparison approach and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five main themes emerged from the data, namely, achieving mutual understanding, recognizing individuality, communication style, information giving, and medication decision making. For both pharmacists and patients, a PCC consultation should promote mutual understanding and non-judgmental discussions. Communication was an important element to bridge the gap between patients' and pharmacists' expectations. Patients emphasized the importance of emotional aspects of the consultation, while pharmacists emphasized the importance of evidence-based information to support patient engagement and information needs.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of pharmacists' and patients' views provided insight towards important aspects of PCC in pharmacist-patient consultations. It was suggested that PCC is not a one-sided approach but rather a patient-provider collaboration to optimize the consultation. Further research can be done to improve the integration of PCC in the local health care context, including pharmacist consultations.
METHODS: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 Asian patients with cancer from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. Thematic analysis was performed.
RESULTS: While most participants, especially younger patients with young children, experienced intense emotional distress upon receiving a cancer diagnosis, those with a family history of cancer were relatively calm and resigned. Nonetheless, the prior negative experience with cancer in the family made affected participants with a family history less eager to seek cancer treatment and less hopeful for a cure. Although a majority viewed the presence of family members during the breaking of bad news as important, a minority opted to face it alone to lessen the emotional impact on their family members. Difficulties disclosing the news of a cancer diagnosis to loved ones also emerged as an important need. Sensitive and empathetic patient-physician communication during the breaking of news of a cancer diagnosis was stressed as paramount.
CONCLUSION: A patient-centered communication approach needs to be developed to reduce the emotional distress to patients and their families after the breaking of bad news of a cancer diagnosis. This is expected to positively affect the patients' subsequent coping skills and attitudes toward cancer, which may improve adherence to cancer therapy.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted between April to June 2020 in Malaysia. Patients who have recovered from COVID-19 for at least 1 month and their family members who were tested with negative results, Malaysian and aged 18-65 years old were purposively sampled. Cold call method was employed to recruit patients while their family members were recruited by their recommendations. Telephone interviews were conducted with the participants after obtaining their verbal consent.
RESULTS: A total of 18 participants took part in this study. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (Ι) experience of stigmatization, (ΙΙ) perspective on disease disclosure, and (ΙΙΙ) suggestion on coping and reducing stigma. The participants expressed their experiences of being isolated, labelled, and blamed by the people surrounding them including the health care providers, neighbours, and staff at the service counters. Some respondents expressed their willingness to share their experience with others by emphasizing the importance of taking preventive measure in order to stop the chain of virus transmission and some of them chose to disclose this medical history for official purpose because of fear and lack of understanding among the public. As suggested by the respondents, the approaches in addressing social stigma require the involvement of the government, the public, health care provider, and religious leader.
CONCLUSION: Individuals recovered from COVID-19 and their families experienced social stigma. Fear and lack of public understanding of the COVID-19 disease were the key factors for non-disclosure. Some expressed their willingness to share their experience as they perceived it as method to increase public awareness and thereby reducing social stigma. Multifaceted approaches with the involvement of multiple parties including the government, non-governmental organization as well as the general public were recommended as important measures to address the issues of social stigma.
METHODS: In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with the intervention design team, healthcare providers and patients in two rounds during the implementation period. A total of 121 individuals in the two rounds, split into different groups, where some of the participants of the FGD were also interviewed individually. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis, with codes being organised into larger themes.
RESULTS: Themes that emerged from the data were around the process of FHT implementation and the advantages of the FHT, which included continuity of health care and improved quality of care. Patients and health care providers were receptive to the FHT concept, and took the effort to adapt the concept in the local settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The FHT concept implemented at 20 public primary health clinics has benefits appreciated by health care providers and patients. Addressing the viable shortcomings would better prepare the current primary healthcare system to scale up the FHT concept nationwide and enhance its feasibility and sustainability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the National Medical Research Register, Ministry of Health Malaysia ( NMRR-17-295-34711 ).