OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia.
SETTING: An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a "collaborator" or a "non-collaborator". Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) of the PPCI for physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. "Collaborators" had significantly higher scores compared to "non-collaborators" (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test-retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752.
CONCLUSION: The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors' views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Malay MALMAS (M-MALMAS) in Malaysia.
METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes, who could understand Malay, were recruited between May 2016 and February 2017 from a primary care clinic in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The M-MALMAS and the Malay version of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) were administered at baseline to test for convergent validity. Four weeks later, the M-MALMAS was re-administered. Predictive validity of the M-MALMAS was assessed by correlating the medication adherence scores with levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).
RESULTS: In total, 100 of 104 people agreed to participate (response rate = 96.2%). The overall Cronbach's α and McDonald's Ω for the M-MALMAS was 0.654 and 0.676, respectively (mean = 0.665). At test-retest, no significant difference was found for all items. The median total score interquartile range (IQR) of the M-MALMAS was 7.0 (6.0-8.0) and this was significantly correlated to the median total score of the Malay MMAS-8 [median (IQR) = 7.0 (5.8-8.0), p
METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional study which sampled 562 respondents across the Klang Valley, Malaysia using a stratified quota sampling method and a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographic data, self-medication practices and perception towards self-medication. Perception towards self-medication was measured using 20 statements with a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive and inferential tests as well as factor analysis were used to analyse the data.
KEY FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of self-medication for minor ailments was 63.5%. Self-medication was practised to a similar degree regardless of respondent demographics. Respondents most frequently obtained their medicines for self-medication of minor ailments from pharmacies without consulting the pharmacist (68.6%), followed by using leftover medications at home (44.8%) and obtaining medicines from friends and family (16.0%). Factor analysis revealed that self-medication behaviour is driven by good perception towards self-medication in terms of efficacy, safety and convenience, as well as by previous personal or shared experiences.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of self-medication is high among adults in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. Adults who self-medicate view the consequences of self-medication in a positive light and may be influenced by previous personal or shared experiences. As certain risks with self-medication may be underestimated, efforts to educate the public while promoting a more proactive approach among healthcare professionals should be encouraged.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted with 300 community pharmacists in the Klang Valley, Malaysia using a stratified sampling approach. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions with three sections: demographic data, adoption of mHealth applications and perception towards mHealth applications. Descriptive and inferential tests as well as exploratory factor analysis were used to analyse the data.
KEY FINDINGS: Adoption of mHealth applications by community pharmacists for both professional and personal use was relatively high at 79.7%. Utilised mHealth applications were primarily from the medical references category, while applications for patient monitoring, personal care and fitness were used to a lesser degree. Among mHealth application users, only 65.7% recommended them to their patients. Overall perception towards mHealth applications was positive, but perception towards the benefits and favour of mHealth applications for their patients was lower. This was corroborated by the factor analysis, which identified four main factors explaining 59.9% of variance in the dataset. These factors were perception towards use in their own professional practice, perception on benefits and use in their patients, perception on specific features of mHealth applications, and reliability of mHealth applications.
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of mHealth applications among community pharmacists in Malaysia is high. Community pharmacists are more likely to use mHealth applications professionally and personally but less likely to recommend them to patients due to less favourable perceptions on how patients will benefit from mHealth applications.
METHODS: The study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire. Knowledge of PIMs was assessed using 10 clinical vignettes based on the 2015 Beers Criteria. Practice behaviour towards older customers was assessed using 10 items with a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: A total of 277 community pharmacists participated in the study. Only 27.1% of the pharmacists were aware of Beers Criteria, and of these, only 37.3% were aware of the latest 2015 update. The respondents demonstrated moderate knowledge of PIMs with a mean total score of 5.46 ± 1.89 out of a maximum of 10. Pharmacists who were aware of Beers Criteria had significantly higher scores (6.31 vs 5.14, P
Aims and Objective: To identify an ideal systolic blood pressure range based on optimal survival among ESRD patients on dialysis.
Method: A systematic search for clinical trials assessing the impact of different systolic blood pressure range on mortality among ESRD patients on hemodialysis was conducted through PubMed, EBSCOhost, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. All randomized control trials (RCTs) involving ESRD patients on hemodialysis with primary or secondary outcome of assessing the impact different systolic blood pressure range (140 mm Hg) on all-cause mortality were included. The quality of reporting of the included studies was evaluated using the Jadad scale. Two researchers independently conducted eligibility assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third researcher when needed. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
Results: A total of 1,787 research articles were identified during the initial search, after which six RCTs met our inclusion criteria. According to the Jadad scale, all six RCTs scored 3 points each for quality of reporting. Four RCTs employed pharmacological intervention while two RCTs assessed non-pharmacological intervention. Of the six RCTs, two studies were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of <140 mm Hg at the end of trial with a RR for reduction in mortality of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.3-1.07; P = 0.08). Four RCTs were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of >140 mm Hg at the end of trial, with the RR for reduction of mortality of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = 0.003). Overall, pooled estimates of the six RCTs suggested the reduction in systolic blood pressure statistically reduce all cause of mortality (RR, 0.69%; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90; P = 0.006) among ESRD patients on hemodialysis.
Conclusion: Though not statically significant, the current study identifies <140 mm Hg as a promising blood pressure range for optimum survival among ESRD patients on hemodialysis. However, further studies are required to establish an ideal blood pressure range among hemodialysis patients.
Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42019121102).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.
CONCLUSION: The progress of developing a cancer treatment that may successfully and efficiently target mutant p53 is on the verge of development. Mutant p53 proteins not only initiate oncogenesis but also cause resistance in cancer cells to certain chemo or radiotherapies, further endorse cancer cell survival and promote migration as well as metastasis of cancerous cells. With this regard, many mutant p53 inhibitors have been developed, some of which are currently being evaluated at the pre-clinical level and have been identified and discussed. To date, APR-246 is the most prominent one that has progressed to the Phase III clinical trial.
METHOD: A modified Delphi study was conducted among students and educators from University Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Taylor's University (TU) on three undergraduate programmes. In Round 1, participants were asked to select the topics from the respective syllabi to be developed into RLOs. Priority ranking was determined by using frequencies and proportions. The first quartile of the prioritised topics was included in Round 2 survey, which the participants were asked to rate the level of priority of each topic using a 5-point Likert scale. The mean score of the topics was compared between students and educators.
RESULT: A total of 43 educators and 377 students participated in this study. For UM and TU Pharmacy, there was a mismatch in the prioritised topics between the students and educators. For UPM, both the educators and students have prioritised the same topics in both rounds. To harmonise the prioritisation of topics between students and educators for UM and TU Pharmacy, the topics with a higher mean score by both the students and educators were prioritised.
CONCLUSION: The mismatch in prioritised topics between students and educators uncovered factors that might influence the prioritisation process. This study highlighted the importance of conducting needs assessment at the beginning of eLearning resources development.