MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot cross-sectional survey was conducted among breast cancer survivors (n=40) who were members of Breast Cancer Support Group Centre Johor Bahru. A validated self-administered questionnaire was used to identify the relationships between socio-demography, medical characteristics and HR-QOL of the participants.
RESULTS: Living with family and completion of treatment were significant predictive factors of self-rated QOL, while living with family and ever giving birth significantly predicted satisfaction with health and physical health. Psychological health had moderate correlations with number of children and early cancer stage. Survivors' higher personal income (>MYR4,500) was the only significant predictor of social relationship, while age, income more than MYR4,500 and giving birth significantly predicted environment domain score.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggested the survivors coped better in all four HR-QOL domains if they were married, lived with family, had children and were employed.
METHODS: This qualitative study used individual in-depth interviews to capture the views and experiences of non-pregnant diabetic women of reproductive age in four public health clinics in a southwestern state of peninsular Malaysia from May 2016 to February 2017. The participants were purposively sampled according to ethnicity and were interviewed using a semi-structured topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: From the 33 interviews that were analysed, four important factors influencing participants' decisions regarding pregnancy planning were identified. Participants' perception of poor pregnancy outcomes due to advanced age and medical condition was found to have an impact. However, despite these fears and negative relationships with doctors, personal, family and cultural influences supported by religious 'up to God' beliefs took centre stage in the pregnancy intention of some participants. Participants demonstrated a variety of understandings of pregnancy planning. They outlined some activities for pregnancy preparation, although many also reported limited engagement with pre-pregnancy care.
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasised the known dilemma experienced by diabetic women considering their desire for an ideal family structure against their perceived pregnancy risks, heterogeneous religious beliefs and the impact of cultural demands on pregnancy intention. This study urges healthcare providers to increase their engagement with the women in pregnancy planning in a more personalised approach.
METHODS: This study adopted a comparative case study design with a qualitative focus to identify similarities and differences of the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the insulin PDA across different sites. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare providers and 15 patients from five public health clinics under the Ministry of Health in Malaysia. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged which were: 1) time constraint; 2) PDA costs; 3) tailoring PDA use to patient profile; 4) patient decisional role; and 5) leadership and staff motivation. Based on the interviews and drawing on observations and interview reflection notes, time constraint emerged as the common prominent factor that cut across all the clinics, however, tailoring PDA use to patient profile; patient decisional role; leadership and staff motivation varied due to the distinct challenges faced by specific clinics. Among clinics from semi-urban areas with more patients from limited education and lower socio-economic status, patients' ability to comprehend the insulin PDA and their tendency to rely on their doctors and family to make health decisions were felt to be a prominent barrier to the insulin PDA implementation. Staff motivation appeared to be stronger in most of the clinics where specific time was allocated to diabetes team to attend to diabetes patients and this was felt could be a potential facilitator, however, a lack of leadership might affect the insulin PDA implementation even though a diabetes team is present.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found time constraint as a major potential barrier for PDA implementation and effective implementation of the insulin PDA across different public health clinics would depend on leadership and staff motivation and, the need to tailor PDA use to patient profile. To ensure successful implementation, implementers should avoid a 'one size fits all' approach when implementing health innovations.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide a critical summary of EEs of PCVs and identify key drivers of EE findings in LMICs.
METHODS: We searched Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central from their inception to 30 September 2015 and limited the search to LMICs. The search was undertaken using the search strings 'pneumococc* AND conjugat* AND (vaccin* OR immun*)' AND 'economic OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility' in the abstract, title or keyword fields. To be included, each study had to be a full EE of a PCV and conducted for an LMIC. Studies were extracted and reviewed by two authors. The review involved standard extraction of the study overview or the characteristics of the study, key drivers or parameters of the EE, assumptions behind the analyses and major areas of uncertainty.
RESULTS: Out of 134 records identified, 22 articles were included. Seven studies used a Markov model for analysis, while 15 studies used a decision-tree analytic model. Eighteen studies performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA), with disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years or life-years gained as a measure of health outcome, while four studies focused only on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Both CEA and CUA findings were provided by eight studies. Herd effects and serotype replacement were considered in 10 and 13 studies, respectively. The current evidence shows that both the 10-valent and 13-valent PCVs are probably cost effective in comparison with the 7-valent PCV or no vaccination. The most influential parameters were vaccine efficacy and coverage (in 16 of 22 studies), vaccine price (in 13 of 22 studies), disease incidence (in 11 of 22 studies), mortality from IPD and pneumonia (in 8 of 22 studies) and herd effects (in 4 of 22 studies). The findings were found to be supportive of the products owned by the manufacturers.
CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrated that an infant PCV programme was a cost-effective intervention in most LMICs (in 20 of 22 studies included). The results were sensitive to vaccine efficacy, price, burden of disease and sponsorship. Decision makers should consider EE findings and affordability before adoption of PCVs.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.
METHODS: A cross-sectional randomized intervention study over 12 months' duration was conducted in university hospital simulation lab. ACLS-certified medical doctors were assigned to run 2 standardized simulated resuscitation code as RTL from a head-end position (HEP) and leg-end position (LEP). They were evaluated on leadership qualities including situational attentiveness (SA), errors detection (ED), and decision making (DM) using a standardized validated resuscitation-code-checklist (RCC). Performance was assessed live by 2 independent raters and was simultaneously recorded. RTL self-perceived performance was compared to measured performance.
RESULTS: Thirty-four participants completed the study. Mean marks for SA were 3.74 (SD ± 0.96) at HEP and 3.54 (SD ± 0.92) at LEP, P = .48. Mean marks for ED were 2.43 (SD ± 1.24) at HEP and 2.21 (SD ± 1.14) at LEP, P = .40. Mean marks for DM were 4.53 (SD ± 0.98) at HEP and 4.47 (SD ± 0.73) at LEP, P = .70. The mean total marks were 10.69 (SD ± 1.82) versus 10.22 (SD ± 1.93) at HEP and LEP respectively, P = .29 which shows no significance difference in all parameters. Twenty-four participants (71%) preferred LEP for the following reasons, better visualization (75% of participants); more room for movement (12.5% of participants); and better communication (12.5% of participants). RTL's perceived performance did not correlate with actual performance CONCLUSION:: The physical position either HEP or LEP appears to have no influence on performance of RTL in simulated cardiac resuscitation. RTL should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each position.
OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a rescue framework for the transfusion of the best CP to the most critical patients with COVID-19 on the basis of biological requirements by using machine learning and novel MCDM methods.
METHOD: The proposed framework is illustrated on the basis of two distinct and consecutive phases (i.e. testing and development). In testing, ABO compatibility is assessed after classifying donors into the four blood types, namely, A, B, AB and O, to indicate the suitability and safety of plasma for administration in order to refine the CP tested list repository. The development phase includes patient and donor sides. In the patient side, prioritisation is performed using a contracted patient decision matrix constructed between 'serological/protein biomarkers and the ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to fractional inspired oxygen criteria' and 'patient list based on novel MCDM method known as subjective and objective decision by opinion score method'. Then, the patients with the most urgent need are classified into the four blood types and matched with a tested CP list from the test phase in the donor side. Thereafter, the prioritisation of CP tested list is performed using the contracted CP decision matrix.
RESULT: An intelligence-integrated concept is proposed to identify the most appropriate CP for corresponding prioritised patients with COVID-19 to help doctors hasten treatments.
DISCUSSION: The proposed framework implies the benefits of providing effective care and prevention of the extremely rapidly spreading COVID-19 from affecting patients and the medical sector.
METHOD: This study is a retrospective review of 116 pediatric patients presenting with sore throat. Group A comprised patients before the implementation of the McIsaac rule and Group B comprised patients after the implementation.
RESULTS: Unnecessary throat swab cultures were reduced by 40% (P = 0.003). Redundant antibiotic prescriptions were reduced by 26.5% (P = 0.003) and the overall use of antibiotics was reduced by 22.1% (P = 0.003). The pediatricians' compliance rate to McIsaac rule criteria was 45% before implementation of the McIsaac rule, but improved to 67.9% (P = 0.0005) after implementation.
DISCUSSION: The McIsaac rule is an effective tool for the management of sore throat in children in Malaysia.
OBJECTIVES: To generate consensus among dermatologists on the content of an outpatient discharge checklist, to create one and to seek clinicians' opinions on its usefulness.
METHODS: Seventeen consultant dermatologists from five National Health Service trusts completed a 72-item Delphi questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate each item for importance in contributing to a high-quality discharge decision. Eighteen clinicians completed a questionnaire evaluating checklist use.
RESULTS: Consensus was determined when ≥ 75% of consultants rated an item 'very important' or 'important'. There was strong inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0·958) and fair inter-rater agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0·269). There were 26 consensus-agreed items, condensed to 13 that formed the 'traffic-light' checklist. These are disease-related issues (diagnostic certainty, disease severity, treatment appropriateness, patient manageable in primary care, patient's benefit from follow-up), patient empowerment issues (understanding diagnosis and treatment outcome, having a clear plan, treatment side-effects, ability to self-manage) and addressing concerns (patient concerns, easy reaccess to secondary care, whether patient and clinician are happy with the decision). Twelve clinicians (67%) found the checklist useful, 11 (61%) wanted to use it in future, 10 (56%) thought it was useful for training and three (17%) said it helped their thinking. Clinicians suggested its use for auditing and for training clinicians and administrators.
CONCLUSIONS: Items were identified to create an outpatient discharge information checklist, which demonstrated high acceptability.
METHODS: Ten focus group discussions were held with opinion leaders (chiefs, elders, assemblymen, leaders of women groups) and 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with healthcare workers (District Directors of Health, Medical Assistants in-charge of health centres, and district Public Health Nurses and Midwives). The interviews and discussions were audio recorded, transcribed into English and imported into NVivo 10 for content analysis.
RESULTS: As heads of the family, men control resources, consult soothsayers to determine the health seeking or treatment for pregnant women, and serve as the final authority on where and when pregnant women should seek medical care. Beyond that, they have no expectation of any further role during antenatal care and therefore find it unnecessary to attend clinics with their partners. There were conflicting views about whether men needed to provide any extra support to their pregnant partners within the home. Health workers generally agreed that men provided little or no support to their partners. Although health workers had facilitated the formation of father support groups, there was little evidence of any impact on antenatal support.
CONCLUSIONS: In patriarchal settings, the role of men can be complex and social and cultural traditions may conflict with public health recommendations. Initiatives to promote male involvement should focus on young men and use chiefs and opinion leaders as advocates to re-orient men towards more proactive involvement in ensuring the health of their partners.