OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Malay MALMAS (M-MALMAS) in Malaysia.
METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes, who could understand Malay, were recruited between May 2016 and February 2017 from a primary care clinic in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The M-MALMAS and the Malay version of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) were administered at baseline to test for convergent validity. Four weeks later, the M-MALMAS was re-administered. Predictive validity of the M-MALMAS was assessed by correlating the medication adherence scores with levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c).
RESULTS: In total, 100 of 104 people agreed to participate (response rate = 96.2%). The overall Cronbach's α and McDonald's Ω for the M-MALMAS was 0.654 and 0.676, respectively (mean = 0.665). At test-retest, no significant difference was found for all items. The median total score interquartile range (IQR) of the M-MALMAS was 7.0 (6.0-8.0) and this was significantly correlated to the median total score of the Malay MMAS-8 [median (IQR) = 7.0 (5.8-8.0), p
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the usability and utility testing of a newly developed medication adherence app-Med Assist-among ambulatory care patients in Malaysia.
METHODS: The Med Assist app was developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Nielson usability model. Beta testing was conducted from March to May 2016 at a primary care clinic in Kuala Lumpur. Ambulatory care patients who scored ≥40% on the electronic health literacy scale, were aged ≥21 years, and were taking two or more long-term medications were recruited. Two rounds of in-depth interviews were conducted with each participant. The first interview, which was conducted upon participant recruitment, was to assess the usability of Med Assist. Participants were asked to download Med Assist on their phone and perform two tasks (register themselves on Med Assist and enter at least one medication). Participants were encouraged to "concurrently think aloud" when using Med Assist, while nonverbal cues were observed and recorded. The participants were then invited for a second interview (conducted ≥7 days after the first interview) to assess the utility of Med Assist after using the app for 1 week. This was done using "retrospective probing" based on a topic guide developed for utilities that could improve medication adherence.
RESULTS: Usability and utility testing was performed for the Med Assist app (version P4). A total of 13 participants were recruited (6 men, 7 women) for beta testing. Three themes emerged from the usability testing, while three themes emerged from the utility testing. From the usability testing, participants found Med Assist easy to use and user friendly, as they were able to complete the tasks given to them. However, the details required when adding a new medication were found to be confusing despite displaying information in a hierarchical order. Participants who were caregivers as well as patients found the multiple-user support and pill buddy utility useful. This suggests that Med Assist may improve the medication adherence of patients on multiple long-term medications.
CONCLUSIONS: The usability and utility testing of Med Assist with end users made the app more patient centered in ambulatory care. From the usability testing, the overall design and layout of Med Assist were simple and user friendly enough for participants to navigate through the app and add a new medication. From the participants' perspectives, Med Assist was a useful and reliable tool with the potential to improve medication adherence. In addition, utilities such as multiple user support and a medication refill reminder encouraged improved medication management.
METHODS: A search was conducted on five databases for articles published in English from 1980 till March 2015. Included were studies who recruited children (aged 5-18 years), with a diagnosis or newly/recurrent epilepsy, an intelligent quotient (IQ) of ≥70 or attending regular school, with or without a control group, which measured academic achievement using a standardised objective measure, and published in English. Excluded were children with learning difficulties, intellectual disabilities (IQ<70) and other comorbidities such as attention deficits hyperactive disorder or autism. Two pairs of reviewers extracted the data, and met to resolve any differences from the data extraction process.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. The majority of the studies assessed "low achievement" whist only two studies used the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of "underachievement". Fourteen studies (70%) reported that CWE had significantly lower academic achievement scores compared to healthy controls, children with asthma or reported norms. The remaining six studies (30%) did not report any differences. CWE had stable academic achievement scores over time (2-4 years), even among those whose seizure frequency improved. Higher parental education and children with higher IQ, and had better attention or had a positive attitude towards epilepsy, were associated with higher academic achievement score. Older children were found to have lower academic achievement score.
CONCLUSIONS: In CWE of normal intelligence, the majority of published literature found that academic achievement was lower than controls or reported norms. The high percentages of low achievement in CWE, especially in the older age group, and the stability of scores even as seizure frequency improved, highlights the need for early screening of learning problems, and continued surveillance.
Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.
Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.
Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.
METHODS: The English version of the KDQOL-36 was translated according to international guidelines to Malay. Content validity was verified by an expert panel and piloted in five patients. Our instrument was then administered to patients with chronic kidney disease stage 1-3A and patients on hemodialysis at baseline and 4 weeks later.
RESULTS: A total of 181/232 patients agreed to participate (response rate = 78.0%). The majority were male (69.6%) with a median age of 51.0 years. Exploratory factor analysis found that the KDQOL-36 had three domains. All three domains showed low to moderate correlation (Spearman's Rho = 0.297-0.610) with the Europe Quality of Life Five Dimension questionnaire. Patients on hemodialysis (physical component summary = 39.8; mental component summary = 53.1;burden of disease = 37.5; symptoms/burden list = 75.0; effects of kidney disease on daily life = 68.8) had significantly worse quality of life than patients with chronic kidney disease stage 1-3A (physical component summary = 49.9; mental component summary = 52.9; burden of disease = 75.0; symptoms/burden list = 85.4; effects of kidney disease on daily life = 93.8, p
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among patients and primary care trainees (known henceforth as doctors). Patients aged ≥ 60 years, having ≥ 1 chronic disease and prescribed ≥ 5 medications and could communicate in either English or Malay were recruited. Doctors and patients were purposively sampled based on their stage of training as family medicine specialists and ethnicity, respectively. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach was used to analyse data.
RESULTS: Twenty-four in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patients and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with 23 doctors were conducted. Four themes emerged: understanding the concept of deprescribing, the necessity to perform deprescribing, concerns regarding deprescribing and factors influencing deprescribing. Patients were receptive to the idea of deprescribing when the term was explained to them, whilst doctors had a good understanding of deprescribing. Both patients and doctors would deprescribe when the necessity outweighed their concerns. Factors that influenced deprescribing were doctor-patient rapport, health literacy among patients, external influences from carers and social media, and system challenges.
CONCLUSION: Deprescribing was deemed necessary by both patients and doctors when there was a reason to do so. However, both doctors and patients were afraid to deprescribe as they 'didn't want to rock the boat'. Early-career doctors were reluctant to deprescribe as they felt compelled to continue medications that were initiated by another specialist. Doctors requested more training on how to deprescribe medications.
METHODS: A 24-item ASK-Q with four domains: self-understanding (5 items), aetiology (5 items), complications (5 items) and management (9 items) of liver cirrhosis was developed based on literature review and expert panel input. It was then piloted in five English-speaking patients with liver cirrhosis. These patients commented that the font size was too small. Hence, the font was enlarged and the final version of the ASK-Q was administered to English-speaking patients with liver cirrhosis, aged ≥18 years, with or without decompensation, at a tertiary hospital, from September 2020 to November 2021, at baseline and fortnight later. Patients with encephalopathy were excluded.
RESULTS: 120/135 patients agreed to participate (response rate = 88.9%). The overall median score was 59.1 (45.6-68.2). A total of 7/22 (31.8%) items were "easy", 14/22 (63.6%) items were "moderately easy" and 1/22 (4.5%) items were "difficult". Exploratory factor analysis extracted nine factors, and two items were omitted. The ASK-Q was able to discriminate the knowledge level of patients with and without tertiary education [59.1 (50.0-72.7) vs. 54.5 (36.4-63.6); P