BACKGROUND: Patients' delay in the presentation with rectal bleeding had been identified as a factor for late diagnosis of colorectal cancer. This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of delay in consulting a medical practitioner and identifying associated factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 80 patients with rectal bleeding, aged 40 and above, was conducted between December 2008 and June 2009 in the endoscopy unit, University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre. The self-administered questionnaire included data on sociodemographic, concern of rectal bleeding, whether patients sought initial advice, any self treatment prior to medical consultation and patients' opinion on causes of their own rectal bleeding.
RESULTS: The prevalence of delay in the presentation of rectal bleeding was 60%. Patients who were less worried (OR 9.6; 95% CI 3.3-27.5), who did not seek anyoneandapos;s advice (OR 11.8; 95% CI 3.8-36.8) and took some treatment before seeking medical consultation (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.0-24.1) were significantly more likely to delay. Multiple logistic regression revealed that less worry of rectal bleeding and not seeking anyoneandapos;s advice were important predictors (p<0.05). The majority of patients attributed their bleeding to benign causes.
CONCLUSION: A high proportion of patients with rectal bleeding in the high risk group delayed in seeking medical advice. Public education needs to focus on interventions to reduce the delay in presenting and diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma.
There is a growing trend in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage among the population with medical conditions. However, there is hesitancy for medical practitioners to integrate its application with the current treatment modality, despite governance by the authority. Hence, our objective is to systematically evaluate the healthcare perception towards integrating CAM in their practices. We systematically searched three large and renowned databases i.e., Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed, regarding "Perception on Integrating CAM Usage in Patient's Treatment among Healthcare Practitioners" from 2016 until 2020. At least two independent reviewers comprehensively screened and extracted the data from the accepted articles. A total of 15 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis following a strict and rigorous assessment checked using MMAT 2018 checklist. The studies included providing the richness of information due to the qualitative nature of the study design. There were three main domains extracted i.e. knowledge, attitude, and perspective of the healthcare practitioner towards CAM integration. Limited knowledge of CAM among healthcare providers may be the possible main reason for non-supportive attitude and negative perspective on CAM. However, those who showed an inclination towards CAM were found to be more open and ready to learn about CAM if it provides benefits to the patients. There is a heterogeneity of perception towards CAM integration from healthcare providers' point of view. A proactive and systematic CAM literacy awareness program may help to improve their understanding and possibly gain more trust in its application.