METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".
CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.
METHODS: This qualitative study used vignettes and think-aloud methods. We recruited patients from a primary care clinic who were at least 18 years old, had high cardiovascular risk and had previously sought OHI. Participants were given two statin-related vignettes: Vignette 1 (low-quality information) and Vignette 2 (high-quality information). Participants voiced their thoughts aloud when reading the vignettes and determined the trust level for each vignette using a 5-point Likert scale. This was followed by a semi-structured interview which was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 20 participants were recruited, with age ranging from 38-74 years. Among all the high cardiovascular-risk participants, eight had pre-existing cardiovascular diseases. For Vignette 1 (low-quality information), five participants trusted it while nine participants were unsure of their trust. 17 participants (85%) trusted Vignette 2 (high-quality information). Five themes emerged from the analysis of how patients evaluated OHI: (1) logical content, (2) neutral stance and tone of OHI content, (3) credibility of the information source, (4) consistent with prior knowledge and experience, and (5) corroboration with information from other sources.
CONCLUSION: Patients with high cardiovascular risks focused on the content, source credibility and information consistency when evaluating and determining their trust in statin-related OHI. Doctors should adopt a more personalised approach when discussing statin-related online misinformation with patients by considering their prior knowledge, beliefs and experience of statin use.
METHODS: A parallel, open-label, 2-arm prospective, pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted at a long-term stroke service at a university based primary care clinic. All stroke caregivers aged ≥ 18 years, proficient in English or Malay and smartphone operation were invited. From 147 eligible caregivers, 76 participants were randomised to either SRA™ intervention or conventional care group (CCG) after receiving standard health counselling. The intervention group had additional SRA™ installed on their smartphones, which enabled self-monitoring of modifiable and non-modifiable stroke risk factors. The Stroke Riskometer app (SRATM) and Life's Simple 7 (LS7) questionnaires assessed stroke risk and lifestyle practices. Changes in clinical profile, lifestyle practices and calculated stroke risk were analysed at baseline and 3 months. The trial was registered in the Australia-New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618002050235.
RESULTS: The demographic and clinical characteristics of the intervention and control group study participants were comparable. Better improvement in LS7 scores were noted in the SRA™ arm compared to CCG at 3 months: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.88 (1.68-0.08), p = 0.03. However, both groups did not show significant changes in median stroke risk and relative risk scores at 5-, 10-years (Stroke risk 5-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.53 (0.15-1.21), p = 0.13, 10-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.53-2.15), p = 0.23; Relative risk 5-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.84 (0.29-1.97), p = 0.14, Relative risk 10-years: Median difference (95% CI) = 0.58 (0.36-1.52), p = 0.23).
CONCLUSION: SRA™ is a useful tool for familial stroke caregivers to make lifestyle changes, although it did not reduce personal or relative stroke risk after 3 months usage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: No: ACTRN12618002050235 (Registration Date: 21st December 2018).
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among patients and primary care trainees (known henceforth as doctors). Patients aged ≥ 60 years, having ≥ 1 chronic disease and prescribed ≥ 5 medications and could communicate in either English or Malay were recruited. Doctors and patients were purposively sampled based on their stage of training as family medicine specialists and ethnicity, respectively. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach was used to analyse data.
RESULTS: Twenty-four in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patients and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with 23 doctors were conducted. Four themes emerged: understanding the concept of deprescribing, the necessity to perform deprescribing, concerns regarding deprescribing and factors influencing deprescribing. Patients were receptive to the idea of deprescribing when the term was explained to them, whilst doctors had a good understanding of deprescribing. Both patients and doctors would deprescribe when the necessity outweighed their concerns. Factors that influenced deprescribing were doctor-patient rapport, health literacy among patients, external influences from carers and social media, and system challenges.
CONCLUSION: Deprescribing was deemed necessary by both patients and doctors when there was a reason to do so. However, both doctors and patients were afraid to deprescribe as they 'didn't want to rock the boat'. Early-career doctors were reluctant to deprescribe as they felt compelled to continue medications that were initiated by another specialist. Doctors requested more training on how to deprescribe medications.
METHODS: Seven licensed practicing community pharmacists (from the Klang Valley, Malaysia) were interviewed between 23rd September to 14th November 2021. These were CPs participating in the questionnaire study who agreed to be interviewed. NVIVO 11 software was used for data analysis. Codes and themes were generated and agreed on by the researchers.
RESULTS: The major themes identified related to the process mentioned of providing information to patients, the issues addressed by CPs during the counselling (including steroid phobia, overuse of TCS, patients asking for a specific preparation by name), less counselling support material, language barriers, lesser knowledge about certain conditions, information sources used by CPs (material provided by Ministry of Health and Malaysian Pharmacists Association, MIMS) and suggestions to strengthen the quality of counselling (specialization in skin diseases, webinars, shared care models). For patients requesting a particular preparation by name, the pharmacist will decide whether the preparation requested is suitable or suggest an alternative. Steroid phobia was seen more commonly among parents of young children and young patients. MIMS was available as a smartphone application making it easier to use. Advanced training for CPs in the management of skin conditions like that provided for diabetes mellitus can be considered.
CONCLUSIONS: Counselling was conducted while dispensing TCS in the open area of the pharmacy. Challenges to counselling were lack of time, limited counselling materials, and language barriers. Steroid phobia requires attention. Initiatives to strengthen counselling were mentioned by respondents and appear feasible. Further research covering the entire country is required.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with MetS attending a university primary care clinic in Selangor, Malaysia. The usability score was measured using a previously translated and validated EMPOWER-SUSTAIN Usability Questionnaire (E-SUQ) with a score of > 68 indicating good usability. Multiple logistic regressions determined the factors associated with its usability.
RESULTS: A total of 391 patients participated in this study. More than half (61.4%) had a good usability score of > 68, with a mean (± SD) usability score of 72.8 (± 16.1). Participants with high education levels [secondary education (AOR 2.46, 95% CI 1.04, 5.83) and tertiary education (AOR 2.49, 95% CI 1.04, 5.96)], those who used the booklet at home weekly (AOR 2.94, 95% CI 1.63, 5.33) or daily (AOR 2.73, 95% CI 1.09, 6.85), and those who had social support to use the booklet (AOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.02, 2.64) were significantly associated with good usability of the booklet.
CONCLUSIONS: The usability of the EMPOWER-SUSTAIN Global Cardiovascular Risks Self-Management Booklet© was good among patients with MetS in this primary care clinic, which supports its widespread use as a patient empowerment tool. The findings of this study also suggest that it is vital to encourage daily or weekly use of this booklet at home, with the support of family members. The focus should also be given to those with lower education to improve the usability of this booklet for this group of patients.
METHODS: The Menopause Quick 6 (MQ6) questionnaire was translated into the Malay language with an addition of an item, henceforth termed MQ6 (M). Forward and backward translation was performed. Face and content validity were conducted. MQ6 (M) was self-administered to 400 women aged between 40 and 60 attending six primary healthcare clinics in Malaysia. To ascertain the reliability for MQ6 (M), corrected Item-Total Correlation, Squared Multiple Correlation, Cronbach's Alpha if the Item is Deleted, and Kuder-Richardson Reliability Coefficients (KR20). Exploratory factor analysis was done to determine its' construct validity.
RESULTS: The outcome of the validation was satisfactory. By the Lawshe method, the content validity ratios ranged from 0.6 to 1.0 and the content validity index was 0.914. The Internal consistency for MQ6(M) Cronbach's alpha was 0.711 while Kuder-Richardson Reliability Coefficients KR20 was 0.676. Factor loading of all four items is above 0.70, indicating a well-defined structure. Whereas factor loading for three items fell within the range of 0.50-0.69 indicating a practically significant threshold for a new questionnaire.
CONCLUSION: MQ6 (M) has acceptable reliability and construct validity to be considered as a self-administered screening tool in primary care clinics in Malaysia.