METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to 1411 respondents via a snowball sampling method among Malaysians aged 18 years and above.
RESULTS: The majority of the respondents were young adults (40.7%), female (62.8%), Malay (63.8%), Muslim (72.3%), married (52.9%), with tertiary education (86.8%) and without medical illness (85%). Social media (97.4%) was the primary source of information regarding COVID-19. The overall acceptance rate was high (83.3%), with the lowest rates among the elderly aged 60 years and above (63.4%) and pensioners (64.6%). Hesitance was caused by concerns regarding side effects (95.8%), safety (84.7%), lack of information (80.9%), effectiveness (63.6%) and religious (20.8%) and cultural factors related to the COVID-19 vaccine (6.8%). Respondents with diabetes mellitus (24.7%) and hypercholesterolemia (23%) were more hesitant to accept the COVID-19 vaccine, at 16.1 and 15.8%, respectively. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance were age, religion, and current residence.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a high rate of acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among Malaysians. Thus, the Malaysian government and other related agencies should increase their campaign and prepare to implement the COVID-19 mass immunisation programme among Malaysians. However, despite the high acceptance rate, it remains important to address concerns among hesitant individuals by building trust in vaccine safety and effectiveness through adequate information regarding the vaccine.
Objective: The aim was to translate and adapt the English PFFS for use in Malaysian clinical settings.
Methods: The original English PFFS underwent forward and backward-translation by two bilingual translators to and from the Malay language. A finalized version, the PFFS-Malay (PFFS-M), was formed after expert reviewers' consensus and was pilot tested with 20 patients, 20 caregivers, 16 healthcare assistants, 17 nurses and 22 doctors. Score agreement between patients and their caregivers and among healthcare professionals were assessed. All participants rated their understanding of the scale using the feasibility survey forms.
Results: A total of 95 participants were included. There were high percentages of scoring agreements among all participants on the scale (66.7% to 98.9%). Overall feedback from all respondents were positive and supported the face validity of the PFFS-M.
Conclusion: The PFFS-M reflects an accurate translation for the Malaysian population. The scale is usable and feasible and has face validity. Reliability and predictive validity assessments of the PFFS-M are currently underway.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the LC scores of three previous years with those of the SBCE and studied the feedback of the three stakeholders: students, examiners, and simulated patients (SPs), regarding their experience with SBCE and the suitability of SBCE as an alternative for LC in future examinations.
RESULTS: The SBCE scores were higher than those of the LC. Most of the examiners and students were not in favour of SBCE replacing LC, as such. The SPs were more positive about the proposition. The comments of the three stakeholders brought out the plus and minus points of LC and SBCE, which prompted our proposals to make SBCE more practical for future examinations.
CONCLUSION: Having analysed the feedback of the stakeholders, and the positive and negative aspects of LC and SBCE, it was evident that SBCE needed improvements. We have proposed eight modifications to SBCE to make it a viable alternative for LC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included only COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized in a Private Hospital in West Jakarta between March and September 2020. All patients were not vaccinated during this period and treatment was based on the guidelines by the Ministry of Health Indonesia. A convenience sampling method was used and all patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled.
RESULTS: The clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients following medical therapy was either cured (85.7%) or died (14.3%), with 14.3% patients reported to have cytokine storm, from which 23.1% led to fatalities. A plasma immunoglobulin (Gammaraas®) and/or tocilizumab (interleukin-6 receptor antagonist; Actemra®) injection was utilised to treat the cytokine storm while remdesivir and oseltamivir were administered to ameliorate COVID-19. Most (61.5%) patients who experienced the cytokine storm were male; mean age 60 years. Interestingly, all patients who experienced the cytokine storm had hypertension or/ and diabetes complication (100%). Fever, cough and shortness of breath were also the common symptoms (100.0%). Almost all (92.3%) patients with cytokine storm had to be treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most (76.9%) patients who had cytokine storm received hydroxychloroquine and all had antibiotics [1) azithromycin + levofloxacin or 2) meropenam for critically ill patients] and vitamins such as vitamins C and B-complex as well as mineral. Unfortunately, from this group, 23.1% patients died while the remaining 70% of patients recovered. A significant (p<0.05) correlation was established between cytokine storms and age, the presence of comorbidity, diabetes, hypertension, fever, shortness of breath, having oxygen saturation (SPO2) less than 93%, cold, fatigue, ward of admission, the severity of COVID-19 disease, duration of treatment as well as the use of remdesivir, Actemra® and Gammaraas®. Most patients recovered after receiving a combination treatment (oseltamivir + remdesivir + Antibiotics + Vitamin/Mineral) for approximately 11 days with a 90% survival rate. On the contrary, patients who received oseltamivir + hydroxychloroquine + Gammaraas® + antibiotics +Vitamin/Mineral, had a 83% survival rate after being admitted to the hospital for about ten days.
CONCLUSION: Factors influencing the development of a cytokine storm include age, duration of treatment, comorbidity, symptoms, type of admission ward and severity of infection. Most patients (76.92%) with cytokine storm who received Gammaraas®/Actemra®, survived although they were in the severe and critical levels (87.17%). Overall, based on the treatment duration and survival rate, the most effective therapy was a combination of oseltamivir + favipiravir + hydroxychloroquine + antibiotics + vitamins/minerals.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study from 4 primary care clinics where 240 patients aged >60 years and their caregivers were enrolled. Patients were assigned to a nurse or a health care assistant (HCA) for 2 separate PFFS-M assessments administered by HCPs of the same profession, as well as by a doctor during the first visit (inter-rater reliability). Patients were also administered the Self-Assessed Report of Personal Capacity & Healthy Ageing (SEARCH) tool, a 40-item frailty index, by a research officer. The correlation between patients' PFFS-M scores and SEARCH tool scores determined convergent validity. Patients returned 1 week later for PFFS-M reassessment by the same HCPs (test-retest reliability). Caregivers completed the PFFS-M for the patient at both clinic visits. Classification cut-points for the PFFS-M were derived against frailty categories defined through the SEARCH tool.
RESULTS: The inter-rater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93)] and test-retest (ICC = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.95]) reliability between all raters was excellent, including by patients' education levels. The convergent validity was moderate (r = 0.637, p < 0.001), including for varying educational background. PFFS-M categories were identified as: 0-3, no frailty; 4-5, at risk of frailty; 6-8, mild frailty; 9-12, moderate frailty; and >13, severe frailty.
CONCLUSION: PFFS-M is a reliable and valid tool with frailty severity scores now established for use of this tool in primary care clinics.