METHODS: In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with the intervention design team, healthcare providers and patients in two rounds during the implementation period. A total of 121 individuals in the two rounds, split into different groups, where some of the participants of the FGD were also interviewed individually. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis, with codes being organised into larger themes.
RESULTS: Themes that emerged from the data were around the process of FHT implementation and the advantages of the FHT, which included continuity of health care and improved quality of care. Patients and health care providers were receptive to the FHT concept, and took the effort to adapt the concept in the local settings.
CONCLUSIONS: The FHT concept implemented at 20 public primary health clinics has benefits appreciated by health care providers and patients. Addressing the viable shortcomings would better prepare the current primary healthcare system to scale up the FHT concept nationwide and enhance its feasibility and sustainability.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the National Medical Research Register, Ministry of Health Malaysia ( NMRR-17-295-34711 ).
METHODS: Secondary data analysis of adults aged 18 years and over from the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2019 was conducted in this study. Characteristics of respondents and those who utilised oral healthcare were described using complex sample descriptive statistics. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between the dependent and independent variables. Dependent variable was oral healthcare utilisation in the last 12 months. Independent variables were demographic and socioeconomic factors (predisposing, enabling and need characteristics) based on Andersen's Behavioural Model.
RESULTS: A total of 11,308 respondents, estimated to represent 21.7 million adults aged 18 years and over in Malaysia were included in the analysis. Prevalence of oral healthcare utilisation in the last 12 months was 13.2%. Demographic factors of sex, age, marital status, and socioeconomic factors of education level and occupation as well as health belief such as medical check-up were significantly related to oral healthcare utilisation. Enabling factor of household income quintile had significant association with oral healthcare utilisation. Inequalities were observed; females (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.25, 1.96), younger adults (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.15, 2.33), those who were married (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.23, 2.22), those with higher education (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.23, 3.99), those who had medical check-up in the last 12 months (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.53, 2.25) and those with higher income (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.96) were more likely to utilise oral healthcare.
CONCLUSION: Understanding factors associated with utilisation of oral healthcare could help in formulating effective interventions to improve oral healthcare utilisation. Demographic and socioeconomic factors are strong determinants of oral healthcare utilisation in Malaysia. Appropriate interventions to strengthen the existing programmes aimed to promote regular and timely oral health check-ups are needed to improve oral healthcare utilisation.
METHODS: This qualitative exploration study. All healthcare providers who were involved in EnPHC at the intervention clinics were selected as participants. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were carried out among healthcare providers working in the intervention clinic. Thematic analysis was used to categorize data, based on the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) theoretical framework domains.
RESULTS: A total of 61 healthcare providers participated. All 5 domains with 19 CFIR constructs emerged from the analysis. Inner setting played a significant role in facilitating CC intervention, in which culture, networking, and collaboration and leadership engagement played an essential role in supporting CC activities. Although CC tasks are complex, concerns of losing clinical skill and resource constraints were identified as potential barriers in CC implementations. Criteria for appointing new CCs emerged from the characteristics of individual constructs, in which the individual must be familiar and interested in community health, have good communication skills, and at least 3 years' experience in the primary healthcare setting.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of the CC intervention faces varying challenges in different settings. This is partially resolved through teamwork, guidance from mentors, and support from superiors. The complexity of the responsibility of the CC intervention is perceived as both a validation and a burden. Above all, it is seen as paramount in EnPHC intervention.
METHODS: This phenomenological qualitative study focussed on patients' experiences in relation to EnPHC interventions. Participants were purposely selected from a group of patients who attended the eight intervention primary healthcare clinics in Johor and Selangor regularly for treatment. Data collection was conducted between April to July 2018. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at average an hour per interview for four to five patients per clinic. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: A total of 35 patients participated. Analysis revealed five main themes about patient experiences receiving the EnPHC intervention. These are: (1) health assessment in disease progress monitoring, (2) patient-doctor relationship and continuity of care, (3) professionalism in service delivery, (4) ensuring compliance in achieving health targets and (5) communication skills. Each theme represents an important aspect of the service, how it should be delivered within the patient expectations and how it can improve patient's health through their lens.
CONCLUSION: Even though patients were not able to exactly identify the EnPHC intervention components implemented, they are able to describe the process changes that occurred; enabling them to improve their healthcare status. Engagement is necessary to better inform patients of the EnPHC intervention, its purpose, mechanisms, changes and importance for healthcare. It would reduce resistance and increase awareness amongst patients at the clinic.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study of patients with cancer was conducted in Hospital Kuala Lumpur between September and October 2020. Self-reported data from the patients were collected using face-to-face interviews. Detailed information about cancer-related OOP expenses including direct medical, direct non-medical, and productivity loss in addition to financial coping strategies were collected. Costs data were estimated and reported as average annual total costs per patient.
RESULTS: The mean total cost of cancer was estimated at MYR 7955.39 (US$ 1893.46) per patient per year. The direct non-medical cost was the largest contributor to the annual cost, accounting for 46.1% of the total cost. This was followed by indirect costs and direct medical costs at 36.0% and 17.9% of the total annual costs, respectively. Supplemental food and transportation costs were the major contributors to the total non-medical costs. The most frequently used financial coping strategies were savings and financial support received from relatives and friends.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that estimation of the total cost of cancer from the patient's perspective is feasible. Considering the significant impact of direct non-medical and indirect costs on the total costs, it is vital to conduct further exploration of its cost drivers and variations using a larger sample size.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed the efficiency of 76 Decision-Making Units (DMUs) or health facilities, consisting of 62 health clinics and 14 hospitals. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used for computing efficiency scores while adopting the Variable Return to Scale (VRS) approach. The analysis was based on input orientation. The input was the cost of ambulance services, while the output for this analysis was the distance coverage (in km), the number of patients transferred, and hours of usage (in hours). Subsequent analysis was conducted to test the Overall Technical Efficiency (OTE), the Pure Technical Efficiency (PTE), the Scale Efficiency (SE), and the Return to Scale with the type of health facilities and geographical areas using a Mann-Whitney U-test and a chi-square test.
RESULTS: The mean scores of OTE, PTE, and SE were 0.508 (±0.207), 0.721 (±0.185), and 0.700 (±0.200), respectively. Approximately, 14.47% of the total health facilities were PTE. The results showed a significant difference in OTE and SE between ambulance services in hospitals and health clinics (p < 0.05), but no significant difference in PTE between hospitals and clinics (p>0.05). There was no significant difference in efficiency scores between urban and rural health facilities in terms of ambulance services except for OTE (p < 0.05).
DISCUSSION: The ambulance services provided in healthcare facilities in the MOH Malaysia operate at 72.1% PTE. The difference in OTE between hospitals and health clinics' ambulance services was mainly due to the operating size rather than PTE. This study will be beneficial in providing a guide to the policymakers in improving ambulance services through the readjustment of health resources and improvement in the outputs.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.
RESULTS: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.
METHOD: This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.
RESULTS: The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains-intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics-that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.
CONCLUSION: Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers' receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics' setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.