METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary care physicians (PCPs) in public primary care clinics in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A 30-item self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the knowledge and practice of CRC screening.
RESULTS: The response rate was 86.4% (n = 197/228). Less than half (39.1%) of the respondents answered correctly for all risk stratification scenarios. Mean knowledge score on CRC screening modalities was 48.7% ± 17.7%. The knowledge score was positively associated with having postgraduate educational qualification and usage of screening guidelines. Overall, 69.9% of PCPs reported that they practised screening. However, of these, only 25.9% of PCPs screened over 50% of all eligible patients. PCPs who agreed that screening was cost-effective (odds ratio [OR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.69‒6.59) and those who agreed that they had adequate resources in their locality (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01‒3.68) were more likely to practise screening. Knowledge score was not associated with the practice of screening (p = 0.185).
CONCLUSION: Knowledge and practice of CRC screening was inadequate among PCPs. Knowledge of screening did not translate into its practice. PCPs' perceptions about cost-effectiveness of screening and adequate resources were important determinants of the practice of screening.
Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.
Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.
Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.
DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in rural and urban areas in a state in Malaysia. Secondary schools were randomly selected and used as sampling units.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years old were invited to answer a self-administered questionnaire on pain experienced over the previous 6 months. Out of 9300 questionnaires distributed, 5206 were returned and 150 participants who did not fall into the 3 ethnic groups were excluded, yielding a total of 5056 questionnaires for analysis. 58.2% (n=2926) were women. 50% (n=2512) were Malays, 41.4% (n=2079) were Chinese and 8.6% (n=434) were Indians.
RESULTS: 21.1% (n=1069) had knee pain during the previous 6 months. More Indians (31.8%) experienced knee pain compared with Malays (24.3%) and Chinese (15%) (p<0.001). The odds of Indian women reporting knee pain was twofold higher compared with Malay women. There was a rising trend in the prevalence of knee pain with increasing age (p<0.001). The association between age and knee pain appeared to be stronger in women than men. 68.1% of Indians used analgesia for knee pain while 75.4% of Malays and 52.1% of Chinese did so (p<0.001). The most common analgesic used for knee pain across all groups was topical medicated oil (43.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of knee pain in adults was more common in Indian women and older women age groups and Chinese men had the lowest prevalence of knee pain. Further studies should investigate the reasons for these differences.
METHODS: In this study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to collect information on healthcare decision-making in Malaysia. We also consulted medical education researchers, key opinion leaders, governmental organisations, and patient support groups to assess the extent to which patient involvement was incorporated into the medical curriculum, healthcare policies, and legislation.
RESULTS: There are very few studies on patient involvement in decision-making in Malaysia. Existing studies showed that doctors were aware of informed consent, but few practised SDM. There was limited teaching of SDM in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and a lack of accurate and accessible health information for patients. In addition, peer support groups and 'expert patient' programmes were also lacking. Professional medical bodies endorsed patient involvement in decision-making, but there was no definitive implementation plan.
CONCLUSION: In summary, there appears to be little training or research on SDM in Malaysia. More research needs to be done in this area, including baseline information on the preferred and actual decision-making roles. The authors have provided a set of recommendations on how SDM can be effectively implemented in Malaysia.