Materials and Methods: A self-administered questionnaire on KAP in the management of DM patients with PD was posted to 725 medical officers (MOs) and family medicine specialists (FMSs) in MOH clinics in Kedah, Terengganu, Johor and Negeri Sembilan. Collected data were tabulated and analysed using descriptive and regression analyses (simple and multiple). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.
Results: A total of 549 MPs responded. The majority of MPs were MOs (92.6%) and female (75.8%). FMSs had a greater awareness of PD when compared to MOs (p = 0.002). All MPs had good knowledge, except for the incorrect notion that excessive sugar causes PD (94.3%). Overall, FMSs had better knowledge when compared to MOs (p=0.026). The majority of MPs agreed that 'they should update their knowledge on the association between systemic disease and PD' (89.6%) and claimed that 'it was not their responsibility to examine DM patients for PD' (83.1%). Most MPs did not enquire or examine for PD in their DM patients. More FMSs (67.5%) referred patients to dentists compared to MOs (31.6%).
Conclusion: Most MPs have sufficient knowledge on PD, but a negative attitude in the management of PD in DM patients. The reasons for not referring included workload and patients refusing referral.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: This study is part of a larger national study on the perception of Malaysian public healthcare professionals on FMSs (PERMFAMS).
PARTICIPANTS: PHCPs from three categories of health facility: hospitals, health clinics and health offices.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analyses of written comments of respondents' general impression of FMSs.
RESULTS: The participants' response rate was 58.0% (780/1345), with almost equal proportions from each public healthcare facility. A total of 23 categories for each of the 648 impression comments were identified. The six emerging themes were: (1) importance of FMSs; (2) roles of FMSs; (3) clinical performance of FMSs; (4) attributes of FMSs; (5) FMS practice challenges; (6) misconception of FMS roles. Overall, FMS practice was perceived to be safe and able to provide effective treatments in a challenging medical discipline that was in line with the current standards of medical care and ethical and professional values. The areas of concern were in clinical performance expressed by PHCPs from some hospitals and the lack of personal attributes and professionalism among FMSs mentioned by PHCPs from health clinics and offices.
CONCLUSIONS: FMSs were perceived to be capable of providing effective treatment and were considered to be important primary care physicians. There were a few negative impressions in some areas of FMS practice, which demanded attention by the FMSs themselves and the relevant authorities in order to improve efficiency and safeguard the fraternity's reputation.