Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Rajaram N, Lim ZY, Song CV, Kaur R, Mohd Taib NA, Muhamad M, et al.
    Psychooncology, 2019 01;28(1):147-153.
    PMID: 30346074 DOI: 10.1002/pon.4924
    OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-income countries (HICs) suggest that physical, emotional, and psychological needs are important in cancer care. To date, there have been few inconsistent descriptions of PROs in low-income and middle-income Asian countries. Using a standard questionnaire developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), we compared the perceived importance of PROs between patients in Malaysia and those in HICs and between clusters of Malaysian women.

    METHODS: Breast cancer patients were recruited from three Malaysian hospitals between June and November 2017. We compared the proportion of patients who rated PROs as very important (scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) between Malaysian patients and data collected from patients in HICs via the ICHOM questionnaire development process, using logistic regression. A two-step cluster analysis explored differences in PROs among Malaysian patients.

    RESULTS: The most important PROs for both cohorts were survival, overall well-being, and physical functioning. Compared with HIC patients (n = 1177), Malaysian patients (n = 969) were less likely to rate emotional (78% vs 90%), cognitive (76% vs 84%), social (72% vs 81%), and sexual (30% vs 56%) functioning as very important outcomes (P 

  2. Dubin JM, Wyant WA, Balaji NC, Ong WL, Kettache RH, Haffaf M, et al.
    J Med Internet Res, 2020 11 05;22(11):e21875.
    PMID: 33031047 DOI: 10.2196/21875
    BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel.

    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologists' perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation.

    METHODS: We conducted a global, cross-sectional, web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only.

    RESULTS: A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% (n=98) of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1% (n=283). Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in telemedicine usage increased from 43.7% (n=139) to 80.8% (n=257) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% (n=244) were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic, and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patients' lack of technological comprehension, patients' lack of access to the required technology, and reimbursement concerns.

    CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine among urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.

  3. Ong WL, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM, Stowell C, Allison KH, Benn KE, et al.
    JAMA Oncol, 2017 May 01;3(5):677-685.
    PMID: 28033439 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4851
    A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.
  4. Chai CA, Teoh YC, Tailly T, Emiliani E, Inoue T, Tanidir Y, et al.
    Minerva Urol Nephrol, 2023 Aug;75(4):493-500.
    PMID: 37293816 DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.23.05239-4
    BACKGROUND: Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) is recommended as an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones up to 2 cm. Pre-stenting before RIRS remains controversial with various studies differing in outcomes and recommendations. We aim to understand how pre-stenting influences surgical outcomes.

    METHODS: A number of 6579 patients from the TOWER group registry were divided into pre-stented (group 1) and non-pre-stented groups (group 2). Patients aged ≥18 years old, with normal calyceal anatomy were enrolled. Patients with ureteric stones, anomalous kidneys, bilateral stones, planned for ECIRS were excluded.

    RESULTS: Patients are homogeneously distributed in both groups (3112 vs. 3467). The predominant indication for pre-stenting was symptom relief. Overall stone size was comparable, whilst group 1 had a significantly more multiple (1419 vs. 1283, P<0.001) and lower-pole (LP) stones (1503 vs. 1411, P<0.001). The mean operative time for group 2 was significantly longer (68.17 vs. 58.92, P<0.001). Stone size, LP stones, age, recurrence and multiple stones are contributing factors for residual fragments at the multivariable analysis. The incidence of postoperative day 1 fever and sepsis was significantly higher in group 2, indicating that pre-stenting is associated with a lower risk of post-RIRS infection and a lower overall complications rate (13.62% vs. 15.89%) (P<0.001).

    CONCLUSIONS: RIRS without pre-stenting can be considered safe without significant morbidity. Multiple, lower-pole and large stone is a significant contributor towards residual fragments. Patients who were not pre-stented had significantly higher but low-grade complications, especially for lower pole and large volume stones. While we do not advocate routine pre-stenting, a tailored approach for these patients should include proper counselling regarding pre-stenting.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links