OBJECTIVES: To examine the differentials and determinants of the utilization of private providers for family planning services.
METHOD: This study used the 2014 Malaysian Population and Family Survey data. Cross-tabulations and logistic regression were performed on 1,817 current users of modern methods.
RESULTS: Overall, 26% of modern method users obtained their supplies from private clinics/pharmacies and 15.2% from other sources, such as drug stores and sundry shops. The odds of utilizing the private sector for family planning services differ significantly across regions and socio-economic groups. The odds of obtaining supply from the private clinics/pharmacies were higher among the Chinese and urban women (AOR > 1), and it was lower among those from the eastern region (AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73). Non-Bumiputera, urban, higher educated, and working women, and those whose husbands decided on family planning had higher odds of obtaining the supply from the other sources (AOR > 1).
CONCLUSION: The private sector complements and supplements the public sector in providing family planning services to the public.
DESIGN: This qualitative study employed an interpretive descriptive approach. Two trained researchers conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) using a semi-structured topic guide, which was developed based on literature review and behavioural theories. All IDIs and FGDs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers analysed the data independently using a thematic approach.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Men working in a banking institution in Kuala Lumpur were recruited to the study. They were purposively sampled according to their ethnicity, job position, age and screening status in order to achieve maximal variation.
RESULTS: Eight IDIs and five FGDs were conducted (n=31) and six themes emerged from the analysis. (1) Young men did not consider screening as part of prevention and had low risk perception. (2) The younger generation was more receptive to health screening due to their exposure to health information through the internet. (3) Health screening was not a priority in young men except for those who were married. (4) Young men had limited income and would rather invest in health insurance than screening. (5) Young men tended to follow doctors' advice when it comes to screening and preferred doctors of the same gender and ethnicity. (6) Medical overuse was also raised where young men wanted more screening tests while doctors tended to promote unnecessary screening tests to them.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified important factors that influenced young men's screening behaviour. Health authorities should address young men's misperceptions, promote the importance of early detection and develop a reasonable health screening strategy for them. Appropriate measures must be put in place to reduce low value screening practices.
METHODS: We conducted a health facility-based cross-sectional study in Aceh and West Sumatra province from 1 February to 13 June 2018. Patients who visited outpatient departments, have had children or were expecting their first child, were approached and interviewed to collect information on acceptance, WTP, demographic and socio-economic variables and attitudes towards childhood vaccines. Associations of explanatory variables influencing acceptance and WTP were assessed using logistic regression and linear regression analysis, respectively.
RESULTS: In total, 956 respondents were included in the final analysis of acceptance, of whom 338 (35.3%) expressed their WTP. We found that 757 (79.1%) of the respondents were likely to be vaccinated and to recommend their partner to be vaccinated. Higher educational attainment, having a job, having heard about Zika and a good attitude towards childhood vaccination were associated with ZV acceptance in the univariate analyses. In the multivariate analysis, attitude towards childhood vaccination was the strongest predictor for ZV vaccination. We found the geometric mean and median of WTP was US$ 13.1 (95% CI: 11.37-15.09) and US$ 7.0 (95% CI: 4.47-10.98), respectively. In the final model, having heard about Zika, having a job, and higher income were associated with a higher WTP.
CONCLUSION: Although the acceptance rate of the ZV is relatively high in Indonesia, less than 40% of respondents are willing to pay, underscoring the need for a low-cost, high-quality vaccine and public sector subsidies for Zika vaccinations in the country.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for the current study came from the Well-being of the Singapore Elderly (WiSE) study; a single phase, cross-sectional survey conducted among Singapore residents aged 60 years and above. A total of 2565 respondents completed the survey; depression was assessed using the Automated Geriatric Examination for Computer Assisted Taxonomy (AGECAT) while a diagnosis of DM was considered if respondents stated that a doctor had diagnosed them with DM.
RESULTS: DM was reported by 25.5% of the population. The prevalence of depression was significantly higher in those diagnosed with DM than those without DM (6% vs 3%). After adjusting for sociodemographic correlates, smoking and other chronic conditions, DM remained significantly associated with depression and subsyndromal depression. However, after including measures of functioning and cognitive impairment as covariates, DM was not significantly related to depression and subsyndromal depression. Those with comorbid DM and depression were more likely to be of Indian and Malay ethnicity, aged 75 to 84 years (versus 60 to 74 years) and widowed.
CONCLUSION: Given the significant association of certain sociodemographic groups with comorbid depression among those with DM, targeted interventions for prevention and early diagnosis in these groups should be considered.
METHODS: Currently available indicators from both household and facility surveys were collated through publicly available global databases and respective survey instruments. We then developed a suite of potential indicators and associated data points for the 45 WHO Essential Interventions spanning preconception to newborn care. Four types of performance indicators were identified (where applicable): process (i.e. coverage) and outcome (i.e. impact) indicators for both screening and treatment/prevention. Indicators were evaluated by an international expert panel against the eRegistries indicator evaluation criteria and further refined based on feedback by the eRegistries technical team.
RESULTS: Of the 45 WHO Essential Interventions, only 16 were addressed in any of the household survey data available. A set of 216 potential indicators was developed. These indicators were generally evaluated favourably by the panel, but difficulties in data ascertainment, including for outcome measures of cause-specific morbidity and mortality, were frequently reported as barriers to the feasibility of indicators. Indicators were refined based on feedback, culminating in the final list of 193 total unique indicators: 93 for preconception and antenatal care; 53 for childbirth and postpartum care; and 47 for newborn and small and ill baby care.
CONCLUSIONS: Large gaps exist in the availability of information currently collected to support the implementation of the WHO Essential Interventions. The development of this suite of indicators can be used to support the implementation of eRegistries and other data platforms, to ensure that data are utilised to support evidence-based practice, facilitate measurement and accountability, and improve maternal and child health outcomes.
METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted in two sub-urban communities in Seremban, Malaysia. A total of 268 participants with prediabetes aged between 18 to 65 years old were assigned to either the community-based lifestyle intervention (Co-HELP) (n = 122) or the usual care (n = 146) groups. The Co-HELP program was delivered in partnership with the existing community volunteers to incorporate diet, physical activity, and behaviour modification strategies. Participants in the Co-HELP group received twelve group-based sessions and two individual counselling to reinforce behavioural change. Participants in the usual care group received standard health education from primary health providers in the clinic setting. Primary outcomes were fasting blood glucose, 2-hour plasma glucose, and HbA1C. Secondary outcomes included weight, BMI, waist circumference, total cholesterol, triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, physical activity, diet, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis of between-groups at 12-month (mean difference, 95% CI) revealed that the Co-HELP participants' mean fasting plasma glucose reduced by -0.40 mmol/l (-0.51 to -0.28, p<0.001), 2-hour post glucose by -0.58 mmol/l (-0.91 to -0.24, p<0.001), HbA1C by -0.24% (-0.34 to -0.15, p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure by -2.63 mmHg (-3.79 to -1.48, p<0.01), and waist circumference by -2.44 cm (-4.75 to -0.12, p<0.05) whereas HDL cholesterol increased by 0.12 mmol/l (0.05 to 0.13, p<0.01), compared to the usual care group. Significant improvements were also found in HRQOL for both physical component (PCS) by 6.51 points (5.21 to 7.80, p<0.001) and mental component (MCS) by 7.79 points (6.44 to 9.14, p<0.001). Greater proportion of participants from the Co-HELP group met the clinical recommended target of 5% or more weight loss from the initial weight (24.6% vs 3.4%, p<0.001) and physical activity of >600 METS/min/wk (60.7% vs 32.2%, p<0.001) compared to the usual care group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that a culturally adapted diabetes prevention program can be implemented in the community setting, with reduction of several diabetes risk factors and improvement of HRQOL. Collaboration with existing community partners demonstrated a promising channel for the wide-scale dissemination of diabetes prevention at the community level. Further studies are required to determine whether similar outcomes could be achieved in communities with different socioeconomic backgrounds and geographical areas.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT201104106163N1.