METHODS: This cross-sectional study enrolled adult cancer patients diagnosed with breast, cervical, colorectal, or nasopharyngeal cancer from 2015 to 2020 in seven public hospitals/oncology centres across Malaysia. Data were collected through patient-administered surveys and medical records. Presentation delay, defined as the duration between symptom onset and the patient's first visit to a healthcare professional exceeding 30 days, was the primary outcome. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: The study included 476 cancer patients, with breast cancer (41.6%), colorectal cancer (26.9%), nasopharyngeal cancer (22.1%), and cervical cancer (9.5%). Over half (54.2%) experienced presentation delays with a median interval of 60 days. Higher proportions of presentation delay were observed among nasopharyngeal cancer patients, employed patients with lower socioeconomic statuses, and those without family history of cancer. Most patients self-discovered their first cancer symptoms (80%), while only one-third took immediate action for medical check-ups. Emotional and organizational factors, such as long waiting times during doctor's visits (47%), were potential barriers to seeking cancer care.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the significant problem of presentation delay among cancer patients in Malaysia. The delay is influenced by various factors encompassing sociodemographic characteristics, health-seeking behaviours, and healthcare system-related issues. A comprehensive approach addressing both individual barriers and institutional obstacles is imperative to mitigate this presentation delay and improve cancer outcomes.
METHODS: A randomised controlled experiment was conducted from 29 April to 7 June 2021, which coincided with the early phases of the national vaccination programme when vaccine uptake data were largely unavailable. 5784 Malaysians were randomly allocated into 14 experimental arms and exposed to one or two messages that promoted COVID-19 vaccination. Interventional messages were applied alone or in combination and compared against a control message. Outcome measures were assessed as intent to both take the vaccine and recommend it to healthy adults, the elderly, and people with pre-existing health conditions, before and after message exposure. Changes in intent were modelled and we estimated the average marginal effects based on changes in the predicted probability of responding with a positive intent for each of the four outcomes.
RESULTS: We found that persuasive communication via several of the experimented messages improved recommendation intentions to people with pre-existing health conditions, with improvements ranging from 4 to 8 percentage points. In contrast, none of the messages neither significantly improved vaccination intentions, nor recommendations to healthy adults and the elderly. Instead, we found evidence suggestive of backfiring among certain outcomes with messages using negative attribute frames, risky choice frames, and priming descriptive norms.
CONCLUSION: Message frames that briefly communicate verbatim facts and stimulate rational thinking regarding vaccine safety may be ineffective at positively influencing vaccine-hesitant individuals. Messages intended to promote recommendations of novel health interventions to people with pre-existing health conditions should incorporate safety dimensions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05244356.
METHODS: The 30-day hospitalization related to COVID-19 was determined using 1 to 1 propensity score-matched real-world data in Malaysia from 14 July 2022 to 14 November 2022. To determine the total per-person costs related to COVID-19, we added the cost of drug (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or control), clinic visits and inpatient care. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per hospitalization averted was calculated.
RESULTS: Our cohort included 31,487 patients. The rate of hospitalization within 30 days was found to be 0.35% for the group treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 0.52% for the control group. The nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group cost an additional MYR 1,625.72 (USD 358.88) per patient. This treatment also resulted in a reduction of 0.17% risk for hospitalization, which corresponded to an ICER of MYR 946,801.26 (USD 209,006.90) per hospitalization averted.
CONCLUSION: In Malaysia, where vaccination rates were high, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir has been shown to be beneficial in the outpatient treatment of adults with COVID-19 who have risk factors; however, it was only marginally cost effective against hospitalization for healthy adults during the Omicron period.