METHODS: A systematic review of published and unpublished studies were carried out. Included studies described the development of explicit criteria for PIM use in older adults and provided a list of medications that should be considered inappropriate. PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus searches were conducted. The PIMs were analyzed according to the general conditions, disease-specific conditions, and drug-drug interaction classes. The qualities of the included studies were assessed using a nine-point evaluation tool. The kappa agreement index was used to evaluate the level of agreement between the identified explicit PIM tools.
RESULTS: The search yielded 1206 articles, and 15 studies were included in our analysis. Thirteen criteria were identified in East Asia and two in South Asia. Twelve out of the 15 criteria were developed using the Delphi method. We identified 283 PIMs independent of medical conditions and 465 disease-specific PIMs. Antipsychotics were included in most of the criteria (14/15), followed by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (13/15), antihistamines (13/15), sulfonylureas (12/15), benzodiazepines (11/15), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) (11/15). Only one study fulfilled all the quality components. There was a low kappa agreement (k = 0.230) between the included studies.
CONCLUSION: This review included 15 explicit PIM criteria, which most listed antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antihistamines as potentially inappropriate. Healthcare professionals should exercise more caution when dealing with these medications among older patients. These results may help healthcare professionals in Asian nations to create regional standards for the discontinuation of potentially harmful drugs for elderly patients.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted between April to June 2020 in Malaysia. Patients who have recovered from COVID-19 for at least 1 month and their family members who were tested with negative results, Malaysian and aged 18-65 years old were purposively sampled. Cold call method was employed to recruit patients while their family members were recruited by their recommendations. Telephone interviews were conducted with the participants after obtaining their verbal consent.
RESULTS: A total of 18 participants took part in this study. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (Ι) experience of stigmatization, (ΙΙ) perspective on disease disclosure, and (ΙΙΙ) suggestion on coping and reducing stigma. The participants expressed their experiences of being isolated, labelled, and blamed by the people surrounding them including the health care providers, neighbours, and staff at the service counters. Some respondents expressed their willingness to share their experience with others by emphasizing the importance of taking preventive measure in order to stop the chain of virus transmission and some of them chose to disclose this medical history for official purpose because of fear and lack of understanding among the public. As suggested by the respondents, the approaches in addressing social stigma require the involvement of the government, the public, health care provider, and religious leader.
CONCLUSION: Individuals recovered from COVID-19 and their families experienced social stigma. Fear and lack of public understanding of the COVID-19 disease were the key factors for non-disclosure. Some expressed their willingness to share their experience as they perceived it as method to increase public awareness and thereby reducing social stigma. Multifaceted approaches with the involvement of multiple parties including the government, non-governmental organization as well as the general public were recommended as important measures to address the issues of social stigma.
METHOD: In phase one, we conducted a literature review using four databases to extract relevant articles and clinical practice guidelines published between 2017 and 2022. The information was structured into a questionnaire consisting of patient education material (10 domains with 130 items) and pharmacist counseling scopes (15 domains with 43 items), with each item having a rating scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) level of agreement. Fifty-two panellists, including otorhinolaryngologists and pharmacists, were invited to complete the questionnaire. A consensus agreement was considered when at least 70% of panellists scored 7 to 9 (critically important). A two-round survey was conducted, and descriptive analysis, inter-rater reliability (≥ 0.5-1 indicate moderate to excellent reliability), variation in the relative interquartile (VRIR
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving the extraction of all Malaysian patients' medical records who were diagnosed with AR and attended the otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic of a government-funded tertiary hospital in Malaysia between 2017 and 2022.
RESULTS: 3,744 cases out of the 57,968 first-encounter outpatient visits to the otorhinolaryngology clinic were extracted for analysis. Overall, the prevalence of AR cases ranged from 1.83 to 9.23% between 2017 and 2022. There was a significant drop of 21.38 to 70.22% between the pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic (p
METHOD: This is a 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, two-arm, and parallel-group controlled trial. The trial recruits patients attending the otorhinolaryngology clinics of a tertiary referral hospital. Participants are randomized into control or intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio using permuted block randomization. The total number of participants estimated is 154, with each group requiring 77 participants. The control group receives standard pharmaceutical care, while the intervention group receives pharmacist-led education according to the AR-PRISE model. Both groups are assessed for middle turbinate endoscopy findings, disease severity, knowledge level, symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL at baseline and the end-of-study follow-up (day 180 ± 7). Depending on feasibility, intermediate follow-ups are conducted on days 60 ± 7 and 120 ± 7, either virtually or face-to-face. During intermediate follow-ups, participants are assessed for symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL. The intention-to-treat analysis includes all participants assigned to each group. An independent T-test compares the mean difference in knowledge level between the two groups. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis is employed to determine between-group differences for scores of symptom control, adherence rate, and QoL. A P-value