METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among Malaysian adults in three northern states of Malaysia. A pre-developed questionnaire consisting of both the EQ-5D and SF-12 items was used for data collection. Concurrent, convergent, and known group validity of EQ-5D were assessed against SF-12 and several known relationships with participants' demographic and illness characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 596 Malaysians participated in the study. The mean EQ-5D score was 0.93 (SD = 0.13), while the mean physical component score (PCS-12) and mental component score (MCS-12) scores were 48.9 (SD = 7.4) and 49.1 (SD = 8.0), respectively. Participants with a current medical problem had lower PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores and reported more problems with all of the EQ-5D dimensions; they also had lower EQ-5D and EQ-VAS scores (P < 0.05). Convergent validity was supported by a moderately positive correlation between EQ-5D and EQ-VAS with MCS-12 and PCS-12 scores; moreover, the stronger effect sizes between PCS-12 and the physical dimensions of EQ-5D as well as between MCS-12 with anxiety/depression scores further supported the convergent validity of EQ-5D. Responses to the EQ-5D dimensions only supported two of the four known group validity hypotheses of higher quality of life among individuals who are better educated and no medical problem. No association was found between income and gender with EQ-5D score.
CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated acceptable construct validity of the EQ-5D among the Malaysian population.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of the PPCI for physicians in Malaysia.
SETTING: An urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from June to August 2014. Doctors were grouped as either a "collaborator" or a "non-collaborator". Collaborators were doctors who regularly worked with one particular clinical pharmacist in their ward, while non-collaborators were doctors who interacted with any random pharmacist who answered the general pharmacy telephone line whenever they required assistance on medication-related enquiries, as they did not have a clinical pharmacist in their ward. Collaborators were firstly identified by the clinical pharmacist he/she worked with, then invited to participate in this study through email, as it was difficult to locate and approach them personally. Non-collaborators were sampled conveniently by approaching them in person as these doctors could be easily sampled from any wards without a clinical pharmacist. The PPCI for physicians was administered at baseline and 2 weeks later.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Validity (face validity, factor analysis and discriminative validity) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) of the PPCI for physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 116 doctors (18 collaborators and 98 non-collaborators) were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the PPCI for physicians was a 3-factor model. The correlation of the mean domain scores ranged from 0.711 to 0.787. "Collaborators" had significantly higher scores compared to "non-collaborators" (81.4 ± 10.1 vs. 69.3 ± 12.1, p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha for the overall PPCI for physicians was 0.949, while the Cronbach alpha values for the individual domains ranged from 0.877 to 0.926. Kappa values at test-retest ranged from 0.553 to 0.752.
CONCLUSION: The PPCI for physicians was a valid and reliable measure in determining doctors' views about collaborative working relationship with pharmacists, in Malaysia.