METHODS: Ethical and institutional approval was obtained at each study location. A questionnaire was designed and distributed to final year students. Domains assessed included demographics, career plans and reasons associated. Anonymised responses were collated and evaluated. Categorical data were compared with Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 342 students in four medical schools of whom 78.6% were undergraduates. Over half (53%) were Irish, with Malaysia, Canada and the USA the next most common countries of origin. Only 18% of students intended to pursue surgery, with 60% stating they did not plan to, and 22% undecided. Of those who plan not to pursue surgery, 28% were unsure about a speciality but the most common choices were medicine (39%), general practice (16%) and paediatrics (8%). Reasons for not picking a career in surgery included long hours and the unstructured career path. Suggestions to improve uptake included earlier and more practical exposure to surgery, improved teaching/training and reduction in working hours.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study 18% of final year medical students identified surgery as their chosen career pathway. Although lifestyle factors are significant in many students' decision, perceived quality and duration of surgical training were also relevant and are modifiable factors which, if improved could increase interest in surgery as a career.
Methods: The drug classification systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Canada were selected to study alongside Thailand's system. The regulatory review was conducted through each country's drug regulatory agency website and available published research. Complementary interviews with drug regulatory authorities were conducted when written documentation was unclear and had limited access. Fifty-two common drugs were selected to compare their actual classifications across the different countries.
Results: All selected countries classified drugs into two major groups: prescription drugs and non-prescription drugs. The studied countries further sub-classified non-prescription drugs into 1-4 categories. Principles of drug classification criteria among countries are similar; they comprised of three themes: disease characteristics, drug safety profile, and other drug characteristics. Actual drug classification of antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and hypertension treatments in Thailand are notedly different from other countries. Furthermore, 77.4% of drugs studied in Thailand fall into the behind-the-counter (dangerous) drug category, which varied from antihistamines to antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and vaccines.
Conclusion: Thailand's drug classification criteria are comparable with other nations; however, there is a need to review drug classification statuses as many drugs have been classified into improper drug categories.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilised the QUALICOPC study data on primary care performance, which was conducted in 2011-2013 (QUALICOPC in Europe Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and 2015-2016 (Malaysia). A standardised questionnaire was completed by primary care practitioners from participating countries. Multilevel regression analysis and composite scores were constructed to compare the performance of primary care on four process dimensions: accessibility, comprehensiveness, continuity of care and coordination.
RESULTS: The high-income countries with strong primary care performed better in comprehensiveness, continuity and coordination but poorer in accessibility to services compared with upper-middle-income countries. Among the upper-middle-income countries, Malaysia scored the best in comprehensiveness and coordination. None of the studied countries were having consistent performance over all indicators either in their respective best or worst primary care services delivery dimensions.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in primary care services delivery across and within the studied countries. The findings indicate room for quality improvement activities to strengthen primary healthcare services. This includes addressing current healthcare challenges in response to the population health needs which are essential for more integrated and efficient primary care services delivery.
METHODS: The study consists of literature reviews and key stakeholders interviews in six focus countries, including the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand and five countries as best practice, comprising of France, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea. Rare disease management initiatives across each country were examined based on the World Health Organization's framework for action in strengthening health systems.
RESULTS: The results suggest rare disease management remains challenging across Southeast Asia, as many of the focus countries face fundamental issues from basic healthcare systems to funding. Nonetheless, there are substantial improvement opportunities, including leveraging best practices from around the world and organising a multi-stakeholder and regional approach and strategy.
CONCLUSIONS: Southeast Asian countries have made significant progress in the management of rare disease, but there remain key areas for substantial development opportunities.