OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine perceived involvement and role preferences of patients with hypertension in treatment decision-making.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 210 patients with hypertension in a teaching hospital in Malaysia.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents agreed that their doctor recognized that a decision needs to be made (89.5%) and informed them that different options are available (77.1%). However, respondents' perceived level of involvement in other aspects of treatment decision-making process was low, including in the selection of treatment and in reaching an agreement with their doctor on how to proceed with treatment. In terms of preferred decision-making roles, 51.4% of respondents preferred a collaborative role with their physicians, 44.8% preferred a passive role while only 1.9% preferred an active role. Age and educational level were found to be significantly related to patient preferences for involvement in SDM. Younger patients (<60 years) and those with higher educational level preferred SDM over passive decision-making (ρ < 0.01). Encouragement from health care providers was perceived as a major motivating factor for SDM among patients with hypertension, with 91% of respondents agreeing that this would motivate their participation in SDM.
CONCLUSION: Preferences for involvement in decision-making among patients with hypertension are varied, and influenced by age and educational level. Physicians have a key role in encouraging patients to participate in SDM.
OBJECTIVE: To create a comprehensive conceptual model of behavioural change related to T2D medication compliance.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study will be conducted at a regional primary care clinic using a mixed-method technique. First, a Grounded Theory qualitative inquiry will be used to investigate predictors of medication adherence in T2D patients. Consequently, the elements derived from the interview will be incorporated into the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework to generate an integrated behavioural model. This model will then be used to quantify the factors related to compliance with medication amongst T2D patients.
DISCUSSION: The framework developed here could help in the design of policies to optimize T2D control by identifying lapses in patients' intake of diabetic medications. This can be done by exploring the patients' fundamental and unarticulated belief system via a naturalistic approach adopted in this study. The properties of the framework can be replicated in other settings to serve as a benchmark for quality improvement in T2D patient care.
Methods: A nationwide representative provider survey amongst community health centres (CHCs) using randomized stratified sampling methods was conducted between September and December 2015. One hundred and eighty CHCs and frontline primary care practitioners from 20 cities across three administrative regions of Western, Central and Eastern China were invited to participate.
Results: One hundred and forty-nine clinicians-in-charge (79%), 1734 doctors and 1846 nurses participated (86%). Majority of CHCs (80%, 95% CI: 74-87) offered hepatitis B testing, but just over half (55%, 95% CI: 46-65) offered hepatitis C testing. The majority of doctors (87%) and nurses (85%) felt that there were benefits for providing hepatitis testing at CHCs. The major barriers for not offering hepatitis testing were lack of training (54%) and financial support (23%). Multivariate analysis showed that the major determinants for CHCs to offer hepatitis B and C testing were the number of nurses (AOR 1.1) and written policies for hepatitis B diagnosis (AOR 12.7-27.1), and for hepatitis B the availability of reproductive health service.
Conclusions: Primary care providers in China could play a pivotal role in screening, diagnosing and treating millions of people with chronic hepatitis B and C in China.
METHODS: In this cross-over study, study participants were randomized to perform the initial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurement in either standing or sitting position. The highest of three readings in each position were compared using paired t-test. A mean difference of
OBJECTIVE: To measure factors associated with mHealth adoption among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among PCPs. The usage of mHealth apps by the PCPs has divided into the use of mHealth apps to support PCPs' clinical work and recommendation of mHealth apps for patient's use. Factors associated with mHealth adoption were analysed using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Among 217 PCPs in the study, 77.0% used mHealth apps frequently for medical references, 78.3% medical calculation and 30.9% interacting with electronic health records (EHRs). Only 22.1% of PCPs frequently recommended mHealth apps to patients for tracking health information, 22.1% patient education and 14.3% use as a medical device. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions were associated with mHealth use for medical references. Family medicine trainees, working in a government practice and performance expectancy were the facilitators for the use of mHealth apps for medical calculation. Internet connectivity, performance expectancy and use by colleagues were associated with the use of mHealth with EHR. Performance expectancy was associated with mHealth apps' recommendation to patients to track health information and provide patient education.
CONCLUSIONS: PCPs often used mHealth apps to support their clinical work but seldom recommended mHealth apps to their patients. Training for PCPs is needed on the appraisal and knowledge of the mHealth apps for patient use.
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 is a cross-sectional study from 4 primary care clinics where 240 patients aged >60 years and their caregivers were enrolled. Patients were assigned to a nurse or a health care assistant (HCA) for 2 separate PFFS-M assessments administered by HCPs of the same profession, as well as by a doctor during the first visit (inter-rater reliability). Patients were also administered the Self-Assessed Report of Personal Capacity & Healthy Ageing (SEARCH) tool, a 40-item frailty index, by a research officer. The correlation between patients' PFFS-M scores and SEARCH tool scores determined convergent validity. Patients returned 1 week later for PFFS-M reassessment by the same HCPs (test-retest reliability). Caregivers completed the PFFS-M for the patient at both clinic visits. Classification cut-points for the PFFS-M were derived against frailty categories defined through the SEARCH tool.
RESULTS: The inter-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93)] and test-retest (ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.95]) reliability between all raters was excellent, including by patients' education levels. The convergent validity was moderate (r = 0.637, p < 0.001), including for varying educational background. PFFS-M categories were identified as: 0-3, no frailty; 4-5, at risk of frailty; 6-8, mild frailty; 9-12, moderate frailty; and >13, severe frailty.
CONCLUSION: PFFS-M is a reliable and valid tool with frailty severity scores now established for use of this tool in primary care clinics.
METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.
CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).
DESIGN: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews. An interpretive description approach with thematic analysis was used for data analysis.
SETTING: An urban primary care clinic in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 years and above who had high cardiovascular risk and sought OHI on statins were recruited.
RESULTS: A total of 20 participants were interviewed. The age of the participants ranged from 38 to 74 years. Twelve (60%) participants took statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention. The duration of statin use ranged from 2 weeks to 30 years. Six themes emerged from the data analysis: (i) seeking OHI throughout the disease trajectory, (ii) active and passive approaches to seeking OHI, (iii) types of OHI, (iv) views about statin-related OHI, (v) influence of OHI on patients' health decisions, and (vi) patient-doctor communication about OHI.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the changing information needs throughout patient journeys, suggesting the opportunity to provide needs-oriented OHI to patients. Unintentional passive exposure to OHI appears to have an influence on patients' adherence to statins. The quality of patient-doctor communication in relation to OHI-seeking behaviour remains a critical factor in patient decision-making.