OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour towards both acute and preventive physical and psychosocial health concerns by sex, age and type of primary care setting (as a proxy for affordability of healthcare).
METHODS: A total of 3979 patients from 221 public and 239 private clinics in Malaysia were interviewed between June 2015 and February 2016 using a patient experience survey questionnaire from the Quality and Cost of Primary Care cross-sectional study. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for the complex survey design was used.
RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, more women than men perceived that most people would see their general practitioners for commonly consulted acute and preventive physical and some psychosocial health concerns such as stomach pain (adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22-2.21), sprained ankle (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.56), anxiety (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55), domestic violence (AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.62) and relationship problems (AOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.51). There were no significant differences in perceived healthcare seeking behaviour by age groups except for the removal of a wart (AOR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.76). Patients who visited the public clinics had generally higher perception of community healthcare seeking behaviour for both acute and preventive physical and psychosocial health concerns compared to those who went to private clinics.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that sex and healthcare affordability differences were present in perceived community healthcare seeking behaviour towards primary care services. Also perceived healthcare seeking behaviour were consistently lower for psychosocial health concerns compared to physical health concerns.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilised the QUALICOPC study data on primary care performance, which was conducted in 2011-2013 (QUALICOPC in Europe Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and 2015-2016 (Malaysia). A standardised questionnaire was completed by primary care practitioners from participating countries. Multilevel regression analysis and composite scores were constructed to compare the performance of primary care on four process dimensions: accessibility, comprehensiveness, continuity of care and coordination.
RESULTS: The high-income countries with strong primary care performed better in comprehensiveness, continuity and coordination but poorer in accessibility to services compared with upper-middle-income countries. Among the upper-middle-income countries, Malaysia scored the best in comprehensiveness and coordination. None of the studied countries were having consistent performance over all indicators either in their respective best or worst primary care services delivery dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in primary care services delivery across and within the studied countries. The findings indicate room for quality improvement activities to strengthen primary healthcare services. This includes addressing current healthcare challenges in response to the population health needs which are essential for more integrated and efficient primary care services delivery.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted between April and May 2017.
SETTING: Forty public clinics in Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 956 adult patients with T2D and/or hypertension were interviewed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient experience on SMS was evaluated using a structured questionnaire of the short version Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument, PACIC-M11. Linear regression analysis adjusting for complex survey design was used to determine the association of patient and clinic factors with PACIC-M11 scores.
RESULTS: The overall PACIC-M11 mean was 2.3(SD,0.8) out of maximum of 5. The subscales' mean scores were lowest for patient activation (2.1(SD,1.1)) and highest for delivery system design/decision support (2.9(SD,0.9)). Overall PACIC-M11 score was associated with age, educational level and ethnicity. Higher overall PACIC-M11 ratings was observed with increasing difference between actual and expected consultation duration [β = 0.01; 95% CI (0.001, 0.03)]. Better scores were also observed among patients who would recommend the clinic to friends and family [β = 0.19; 95% CI (0.03, 0.36)], when health providers were able to explain things in ways that were easy to understand [β = 0.34; 95% CI (0.10, 0.59)] and knew about patients' living conditions [β = 0.31; 95% CI (0.15, 0.47)].
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated patients received low levels of SMS. PACIC-M11 ratings were associated with age, ethnicity, educational level, difference between actual and expected consultation length, willingness to recommend the clinic and provider communication skills.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 13 784 medical records from 20 selected public primary care clinics in Malaysia was performed for patients aged ≥30 years old who were diagnosed with hypertension and had at least one visit between 1st November 2016 and 30th June 2019. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for complex survey design was used to determine the association between process of care and blood pressure (BP) control among the hypertensive patients.
RESULTS: Approximately 50% of hypertensive patients were obese, 38.4% of age ≥65 years old, 71.2% had at least one comorbidity and approximately one-third were on antihypertensive monotherapy. Approximately two-third of the hypertensive patients with diabetic proteinuria were prescribed with the appropriate choice of antihypertensive agents. Approximately half of the patients received at least 70% of the target indicated care and 42.8% had adequately controlled BP. After adjusting for covariates, patients who received counseling on exercise were positively associated with adequate BP control. Conversely, patients who were prescribed with two or more antihypertensive agents were negatively associated with good BP control.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that BP control was suboptimal and deficient in the process of care with consequent gaps in guidelines and actual clinical practices. This warrants a re-evaluation of the current strategies and approaches to improve the quality of hypertension management and ultimately to improve outcome.
Method: We used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR versus PDC), assessment period (90-day versus 180-day), and HbA1c target (⩽7.0% versus ⩽8.0%).
Results: The optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.
Conclusion: We found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good versus poor medication adherence to be clinically meaningful should be at 90%.
METHODS: Hospital admissions for selected diagnoses between 1 February 2021 and 30 September 2021 were linked to the national COVID-19 immunisation register. We conducted self-controlled case-series study by identifying individuals who received COVID-19 vaccine and diagnosis of thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, myocarditis/pericarditis, arrhythmia, stroke, Bell's Palsy, and convulsion/seizure. The incidence of events was assessed in risk period of 21 days postvaccination relative to the control period. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with adjustment for calendar period.
RESULTS: There was no increase in the risk for myocarditis/pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the 21 days following either dose of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. A small increased risk of venous thromboembolism (IRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.02, 1.49), arrhythmia (IRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07, 1.26), and convulsion/seizure (IRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07, 1.48) was observed among BNT162b2 recipients. No association between CoronaVac vaccine was found with all events except arrhythmia (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01, 1.30). ChAdOx1 vaccine was associated with an increased risk of thrombocytopenia (IRR 2.67; 95% CI 1.21, 5.89) and venous thromboembolism (IRR 2.22; 95% CI 1.17, 4.21).
CONCLUSION: This study shows acceptable safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines among recipients of BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. This information can be used together with effectiveness data for risk-benefit analysis of the vaccination program. Further surveillance with more data is required to assess AESIs following COVID-19 vaccination in short- and long-term.
METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental controlled study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 control public primary care clinics in Malaysia from November 2016 to June 2019. Type 2 diabetes patients aged 30 years and above were selected via systematic random sampling. Outcomes include process of care and intermediate clinical outcomes. Difference-in-differences analyses was conducted.
RESULTS: We reviewed 12,017 medical records of patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven process of care measures improved: HbA1c tests (odds ratio (OR) 3.31, 95% CI 2.13, 5.13); lipid test (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.64, 7.97), LDL (OR 4.33, 95% CI 2.16, 8.70), and urine albumin (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.12, 3.55) tests; BMI measured (OR 15.80, 95% CI 4.78, 52.24); cardiovascular risk assessment (OR 174.65, 95% CI 16.84, 1810.80); and exercise counselling (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04, 1.33). We found no statistically significant changes in intermediate clinical outcomes (i.e. HbA1c, LDL, HDL and BP control).
CONCLUSIONS: EnPHC interventions was successful in enhancing the quality of care, in terms of process of care, by changing healthcare providers behaviour.