Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 107 in total

  1. Chong SYF, Lip LYL
    Family Practitioner, 1976;2(5):23-28.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  2. Mubarak N, Hatah E, Khan TM, Zin CS
    J Asthma Allergy, 2019;12:109-153.
    PMID: 31213852 DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S202183
    Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES®, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as "community pharmacist", "general practitioner", and "medicine use review". The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included. Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven pre-post, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis. Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners*
  3. Wattanapisit A, Teo CH, Wattanapisit S, Teoh E, Woo WJ, Ng CJ
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 2020 01 06;20(1):5.
    PMID: 31906985 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-1016-4
    BACKGROUND: Mobile health applications (mHealth apps) are increasingly being used to perform tasks that are conventionally performed by general practitioners (GPs), such as those involved in promoting health, preventing disease, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and support for health services. This raises an important question: can mobile apps replace GPs? This study aimed to systematically search for and identify mobile apps that can perform GP tasks.

    METHODS: A scoping review was carried out. The Google Play Store and Apple App Store were searched for mobile apps, using search terms derived from the UK Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) guideline on GPs' core capabilities and competencies. A manual search was also performed to identify additional apps.

    RESULTS: The final analysis included 17 apps from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store, and 21 apps identified by the manual search. mHealth apps were found to have the potential to replace GPs for tasks such as recording medical history and making diagnoses; performing some physical examinations; supporting clinical decision making and management; assisting in urgent, long-term, and disease-specific care; and health promotion. In contrast, mHealth apps were unable to perform medical procedures, appropriately utilise other professionals, and coordinate a team-based approach.

    CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights the functions of mHealth apps that can potentially replace GP tasks. Future research should focus on assessing the performance and quality of mHealth apps in comparison with that of real doctors.

    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners*
  4. Saw HS
    Family Practitioner, 1983;6:43-49.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  5. Balasubramaniam P
    Family Practitioner, 1981;4:11-14.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  6. Gray DP
    Family Practitioner, 1986;9:60-60.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  7. Lau J
    Family Practitioner, 1977;2:4-4.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  8. Sreenivasan BR
    Family Practitioner, 1974;1(3):3-10.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  9. Jegathesan M
    Family Practitioner, 1987;10:18-20.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  10. Sweeney LA, Molloy GJ, Byrne M, Murphy AW, Morgan K, Hughes CM, et al.
    PLoS One, 2015;10(12):e0144074.
    PMID: 26633191 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144074
    BACKGROUND: The oral contraceptive pill (OCP) remains the most popular form of prescription contraception in many countries, despite adherence difficulties for many. Uptake of long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which are less reliant on user adherence, remains low. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of, and attitudes towards, prescription contraception amongst samples of contraception users, general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists.
    METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 18 contraception users, 18 GPs and 9 pharmacists. The study took place in Galway, Republic of Ireland between June and September 2014. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Overall, contraception users were more familiar with the OCP, and all the women interviewed began their prescription contraception journey using this method. All participants identified episodes of poor adherence throughout the reproductive life course. The identified barriers for use of LARCs were lack of information, misconceptions, lack of access and high cost. In contrast, GPs believed that adherence to the OCP was good and stated they were more likely to prescribe the OCP than other methods, as they were most familiar with this option. Barriers to prescribing LARCSs were time, cost to practice, training and deskilling. Pharmacists also believed that adherence to the OCP was generally good and that their role was limited to dispensing medication and providing information when asked.
    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There are contrasting perspectives between contraception service providers and contraceptive users. Training for healthcare providers is required to support informed contraceptive choice and adherence. It is necessary to address the practice barriers of cost and lack of time, to promote better communication around adherence issues and prescription contraception options. There is a need for more easily-accessible public health information to promote awareness on all methods of prescription contraception.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners*
    Med J Malaya, 1962 Jun;16:302-5.
    PMID: 13915988
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners*
  12. Lee BS
    Family Practitioner, 1975;2(1):27-29.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  13. Lim KH
    Family Physician, 2001;11:35-36.
    Despite time, mobility, knowledge and other constraints, it is still possible for General Practitioners to play an active role in Palliative Care. This article offers various roles where GP can play. Differences between hospice, palliative medicine, palliative care are discussed. Suggestions are made on where to seek formal or informal education on palliative care. Key Words: role, hospice, palliative medicine, palliative care, illness, sickness
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  14. McKay AB
    Family Practitioner, 1977;2(8):101-105.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  15. Macaskill DC
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  16. Catterall RA
    Family Practitioner, 1976;2:13-17.
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
  17. Citation: Buku Panduan Penggunaan Khidmat Doktor Swasta Untuk Perkhidmatan Kesihatan di Klinik Kesihatan. Putrajaya: Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia; 2008

    Guideline on utilisation of private doctors in public primary care clinics. Putrajaya: Ministry of Health, Malaysia; 2008
    Matched MeSH terms: General Practitioners
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (tengcl@gmail.com)

External Links