MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Factors affecting consumers' decisions on the use of nutraceuticals: a systematic review

Teoh SL, Ngorsuraches S, Lai NM, Bangpan M, Chaiyakunapruk N

Int J Food Sci Nutr, 2019 Jun;70(4):491-512.
PMID: 30634867 DOI: 10.1080/09637486.2018.1538326

There is a high and increasing global prevalence of nutraceuticals use. This study aims to systematically review and critically appraise all available evidence to identify the factors affecting consumers' decisions in taking nutraceuticals. Questionnaire, interview or focus group studies which directly reported factors affecting consumers' decisions in using nutraceuticals were included. A thematic synthesis method was employed to synthesis the findings from the included studies. Out of the 76 studies included, the key factors identified as the most important factors motivating consumers to take nutraceuticals were the perceived health benefits and safety of nutraceuticals, as well as the advice from healthcare professionals, friends and family. The identified barriers to take nutraceuticals were a lack of belief in the health benefit of nutraceuticals, the high cost of nutraceuticals and consumers' lack of knowledge about nutraceuticals. As a chief course of recommendation for the use of nutraceuticals, healthcare professionals should strive to utilise reliable information from clinical evidence to help consumers in making an informed decision in using nutraceuticals. Future studies should explore the possible ways to improve channelling clinical evidence information of nutraceuticals to the public.
Healthcare Policies for Stateless Populations in ASEAN Countries: A Scoping Review

Barua P, Bangpan M, Narattharaksa K, Suphanchaimat R, Chaiyakunapruk N

J Immigr Minor Health, 2020 Jun;22(3):597-620.
PMID: 31741181 DOI: 10.1007/s10903-019-00945-y

This study aimed at summarizing the existing health policies for stateless populations living in the 10 ASEAN countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. We followed scoping review method recommended by Arksey and O'Malley. Our inclusion criteria were based on three concepts: populations (stateless and undocumented people), issues (healthcare policies and regulations), and settings (10 ASEAN countries). Our findings suggest that none of the ASEAN countries have explicit healthcare policies for stateless people except Thailand. We also observed that ratification of international human rights treaties relating to the right to health does not necessarily translate into the provision of healthcare policies for stateless population. Although Thailand seems like the only country among 10 ASIAN countries having health policies for stateless populations in the country, the question remains whether having a policy would lead to a proper implementation by ensuring right to health.
Fulltext Assessing evidence of interventions addressing inequity among migrant populations: a two-stage systematic review

Yadee J, Bangpan M, Thavorn K, Welch V, Tugwell P, Chaiyakunapruk N

Int J Equity Health, 2019 05 06;18(1):64.
PMID: 31060570 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-019-0970-x

BACKGROUND: Everyone has the right to achieve the standard of health and well-being. Migrants are considered as vulnerable populations due to the lack of access to health services and financial protection in health. Several interventions have been developed to improve migrant population health, but little is known about whether these interventions have considered the issue of equity as part of their outcome measurement.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence of health interventions in addressing inequity among migrants.
METHODS: We adopted a two-stage searching approach to ensure the feasibility of this review. First, reviews of interventions for migrants were searched from five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE until June 2017. Second, full articles included in the identified reviews were retrieved. Primary studies included in the identified reviews were then evaluated as to whether they met the following criteria: experimental studies which include equity aspects as part of their outcome measurement, based on equity attributes defined by PROGRESS-Plus factors (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, and others). We analysed the information extracted from the selected articles based on the PRISMA-Equity guidelines and the PROGRESS-Plus factors.
RESULTS: Forty-nine reviews involving 1145 primary studies met the first-stage inclusion criteria. After exclusion of 764 studies, the remaining 381 experimental studies were assessed. Thirteen out of 381 experimental studies (3.41%) were found to include equity attributes as part of their outcome measurement. However, although some associations were found none of the included studies demonstrated the effect of the intervention on reducing inequity. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. The interventions included individual directed, community education and peer navigator-related interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence reveals that there is a paucity of studies assessing equity attributes of health interventions developed for migrant populations. This indicates that equity has not been receiving attention in these studies of migrant populations. More attention to equity-focused outcome assessment is needed to help policy-makers to consider all relevant outcomes for sound decision making concerning migrants.
Fulltext Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

Chhibber A, Kharat A, Kneale D, Welch V, Bangpan M, Chaiyakunapruk N

BMC Public Health, 2021 Sep 16;21(1):1682.
PMID: 34525995 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11688-7

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing evidence that COVID-19 has unmasked the true magnitude of health inequity worldwide. Policies and guidance for containing the infection and reducing the COVID-19 related deaths have proven to be effective, however the extent to which health inequity factors were considered in these policies is rather unknown. The aim of this study is to measure the extent to which COVID-19 related policies reflect equity considerations by focusing on the global policy landscape around wearing masks and personal protection equipment (PPE).
METHODS: A systematic search for published documents on COVID-19 and masks/PPE was conducted across six databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and Psycinfo. Reviews, policy documents, briefs related to COVID-19 and masks/PPE were included in the review. To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in the policy documents, a guidance framework known as 'PROGRESS-Plus': Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, disability etc.) was utilized.
RESULTS: This review included 212 policy documents. Out of 212 policy documents, 190 policy documents (89.62%) included at least one PROGRESS-plus component. Most of the policy documents (n = 163, 85.79%) focused on "occupation" component of the PROGRESS-plus followed by personal characteristics associated with discrimination (n = 4;2.11%), place of residence (n = 2;1.05%) and education (n = 1;0.53%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most of the policy documents (n = 176, 83.01%) were focused on "workers" such as healthcare workers, mortuary workers, school workers, transportation workers, essential workers etc. Of the remaining policy documents, most were targeted towards whole population (n = 30; 14.15%). Contrary to "worker focused" policy documents, most of the 'whole population focused' policy documents didn't have a PROGRESS-plus equity component rendering them equity limiting for the society.
CONCLUSION: Our review highlights even if policies considered health inequity during the design/implementation, this consideration was often one dimensional in nature. In addition, population wide policies should be carefully designed and implemented after identifying relevant equity related barriers in order to produce better outcomes for the whole society.