METHODS: A multi-national cross-sectional survey was performed among SEANERN countries. A 1-5 Likert scale was used to measure eight components of knowledge, ability, and skill of PHC providers. Descriptive statistics were employed, and radar charts were used to depict the levels of the three dimensions (knowledge, skill and ability) and eight components.
RESULTS: Totally, 606 valid questionnaires from PHC providers were returned from seven countries of SEANERN (China, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia), with a responsive rate of 97.6% (606/621). For the three dimensions the ranges of total mean scores were distributed as follows: knowledge dimension: 2.78~3.11; skill dimension: 2.66~3.16; ability dimension: 2.67~3.06. Furthermore, radar charts revealed that the transition of PHC provider's knowledge into skill and from skill into ability decreased gradually. Their competencies in four areas, including safe water and sanitation, nutritional promotion, endemic diseases prevention, and essential provision of drugs, were especially low.
CONCLUSIONS: The general capacity perceived by PHC providers themselves seems relatively low and imbalanced. To address the problem, SEANERN, through the collaboration of the members, can facilitate the appropriate education and training of PHC providers by developing feasible, practical and culturally appropriate training plans.
METHODS: Survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters around the world, every year for 20 consecutive years (2000 to 2019). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey. Data were analysed for those countries reporting ≥ 1,000 contact lens fits during this period.
RESULTS: A total of 369,209 contact lens fits were recorded from 40 eligible countries, comprising 2,309 scleral lens fits and 366,900 other (non-scleral) lens fits. Overall scleral lenses represented 0.76 per cent of all contact lens fits with significant differences between countries (p
METHODS: A survey questionnaire was administered online and as hard copy using purposive sampling to 32 healthcare facilities providing cancer services and the Formulary Management Branch in the Ministry of Health. Respondents reported whether a criterion "will be considered" and weighted its relative importance on a 5-point scale. The choice of safety and efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were ranked from 1 to 5, and the minimum value of benefit for the efficacy/effectiveness outcome ranked 1 was provided. Trade-offs between survival and quality of life were also explored. Inferential statistics were used to explore difference in responses.
RESULTS: A total of 316 healthcare professionals responded to the survey. The most important criteria for value assessment of cancer drug were safety and effectiveness. Other criteria deemed important were quality of evidence, disease severity, and patient-reported outcomes. There was no difference in the criteria preference and weights across the various respondent groups. Overall survival was the most preferred clinical benefit outcome. Overall, willingness to pay was higher for life-prolonging treatment than treatment that improved quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that a wide range of criteria beyond the traditional decision-making criteria of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness are important for value assessment of cancer drugs for the purpose of formulary decisions.