METHODS: This study was designed in the form of cross-sectional analysis, in which, cancer survivors were recruited from the Sarawak General Hospital, the largest tertiary and referral public hospital in Sarawak. To capture the financial toxicity of the cancer survivors, the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument in its validated form was adopted. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to determine the relationship between financial toxicity (FT) and its predictors.
RESULTS: The median age of the 461 cancer survivors was 56 while the median score of COST was 22.0. Besides, finding from multivariable logistic regression revealed that low income households (OR: 6.893, 95% CI, 3.109-15.281) were susceptible to higher risk of financial toxicity, while elderly survivors above 50 years old reported a lower risk in financial toxicity. Also, survivors with secondary schooling (OR:0.240; 95%CI, 0.110-0.519) and above [College or university (OR: 0.242; 95% CI, 0.090-0.646)] suffer a lower risk of FT.
CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity was found to be associated with survivors age, household income and educational level. In the context of cancer treatment within public health facility, younger survivors, households from B40 group and individual with educational attainment below the first level schooling in the Malaysian system of education are prone to greater financial toxicity. Therefore, it is crucial for healthcare policymakers and clinicians to deliberate the plausible risk of financial toxicity borne by the patient amidst the treatment process.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of online health information-seeking and its associated factors among patients in primary care in Malaysia. We also examined the reasons for, and the sources of, online health information-seeking, patients' level of trust in the information found and what the information was used for.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted on patients who attended a primary care clinic. The questionnaire included the use of the internet to seek health information, sources and types of health information, eHealth literacy, patients' trust in online information, and how patients appraise and use online health information.
RESULTS: Out of 381 patients in this study, 54.7% (n = 208) used the internet to search for health information. Patients mainly sought information via Google (96.2%) and the most common websites that they visited were Wikipedia (45.2%) and MyHEALTH (37.5%). Higher levels of education, longer duration of internet use, and higher eHealth literacy were significantly associated with online HISB. Patients' trust in websites (45.6%) and social media (20.7%) was low when compared to trust in healthcare professionals (87.9%). Only 12.9% (n = 22) of patients had discussed online health information with their doctors.
CONCLUSION: Online HISB was common among primary care patients; however, their eHealth literacy was low, with suboptimal appraisal skills to evaluate the accuracy of online health information.
METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (policy makers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses) at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between February and June 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: Two main themes and three sub-themes emerged from this study. The main themes were (1) variation in the use of CPG and (2) barriers to adherence to CPG. The three sub-themes for barriers were issues inherent to the CPG, systems and policy that is not supportive of CPG use, and attitudes and behaviour of stakeholders. The main users of the CPG were the primary care doctors. Pharmacists only partially use the guidelines, while nurses and policy makers were not using the CPG at all. Participants had suggested few strategies to improve usage and adherence to CPG. First, update the CPG regularly and keep its content simple with specific sections for allied health workers. Second, use technology to facilitate CPG accessibility and provide protected time for implementation of CPG recommendations. Third, incorporate local CPG in professional training, link CPG adherence to key performance indicators and provide incentives for its use.
CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to the use of CPG hypertension management span across all stakeholders. The development and implementation of CPG focused mainly on doctors with lack of involvement of other healthcare stakeholders. Guidelines should be made simple, current, reliable, accessible, inclusive of all stakeholders and with good policy support.