Search

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is one of the most important outcome measures to be assessed by medical research. This study aims to develop and validate an instrument called the “health-related quality of life with six domains” (HRQ-6D), which aims to measure an individual’s health-related quality of life within a 24 h period of time. This is a questionnaire development study involving five phases, which are (i) to explore the subject matter content for gaining a better understanding of the topic, (ii) to develop the questionnaire, (iii) to assess both its content validity and face validity, (iv) to conduct a pilot study, and finally, (v) to undertake a field testing of the questionnaire. For the field-testing phase, a cross-sectional study involving a self-administered survey for HRQ-6D items was conducted among healthcare workers with various health conditions. Exploratory factor analysis was initially applied to construct the major dimensions of the HRQ-6D. Confirmatory factor analysis was subsequently applied to evaluate the model fit of the overall framework of the HRQ-6D. The clinical utility of this HRQ-6D was also assessed via its association with actual clinical evidence. A total of 406 respondents participated in the survey. Six domains were identified from the analysis, namely “pain”, “physical strength”, “emotion”, “self-care”, “mobility”, and “perception of future health” comprising two items in each domain. Each domain was reported to have a minimum value of Cronbach’s alpha of 0.731, and the model fit for the overall framework of the HRQ-6D was also found to be excellent. Exploratory factor analysis was undertaken for the 12 items of the HRQ-6D. All the domains can be categorized into three major dimensions, namely “health”, “body function”, and “future perception”, with a minimum value for their factor loadings of at least 0.507. A notable finding was that the HRQ-6D was significantly associated with an individual’s existing comorbidities and current status of health (p < 0.05). This study successfully validated the HRQ-6D, and we found it to possess both excellent levels of reliability and validity and a satisfactory degree of model fit; it was also significantly associated with actual clinical evidence.

IntroductionCOVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. While primary series vaccination rates are generally high in Southeast Asian (SEA) countries, various factors have limited the rollout and impact of booster doses.Areas coveredWe reviewed 79 studies in the publicly available International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC) VIEW-hub platform on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after primary immunizations with two-dose schedules. VE data were reported for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths, and stratified across variants of concern (VOC), age, study design and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and combinations of both), vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, AZD1222 “Vaxzevria”) and inactivated virus vaccines (CoronaVac).Expert opinionThe most-studied COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high (>90%) protection against serious clinical outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of variant. Additionally, this protection appears equivalent for mRNA vaccines and vector vaccines like AZD1222, as supported by our analysis of local Asian and relevant international data, and by insights from SEA experts. Given the continued impact of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths on healthcare systems worldwide, encouraging vaccination strategies that can reduce this burden is more relevant than attempting to prevent broader but milder infections with specific variants, including Omicron.Article highlights - VE was high and comparable for both AZD1222 and mRNA vaccine types (91%-93%) in protecting against hospitalization and death from COVID-19, regardless of age.- VE against symptomatic infections trended higher (though not significantly) for mRNA-based vaccines compared to AZD1222.- Waning of VE since time of vaccination was observed for symptomatic infections but was limited for serious COVID-19 outcomes. A sub-analysis of studies with comparative arms evaluating the VE of different vaccines in the same settings also confirmed these observations for all VOC assessed, with all vaccines conferring a high level of protection against serious outcomes.- For Omicron, there is limited comparative data within the IVAC dataset, however, expert review of emerging data suggests that VE against all outcomes is lower for all COVID-19 vaccines, than for the Delta variant.- Data from the UK indicate that VE improves with a booster dose and that VE continues to be very similar, irrespective of the type of vaccine used.- Importantly, all COVID-19 vaccines evaluated here have favorable benefit/risk profiles.- Although many SEA countries have high rates of primary vaccination, there are still challenges to achieving high booster dose coverage. The results of this analysis suggest that the most effective way to achieve vaccine booster targets, particularly in resource-limited settings, would simply be to consider any vaccines which have good safety and comparable effectiveness profiles, particularly against severe outcomes, and that are accessible and optimal for the local situation.- This review reinforces the value of real-world evidence to support efforts advocating for the completion of primary series and booster vaccinations where appropriate, especially to restore VE against emerging VOC such as Omicron. However, data gaps still persist, given the lag between the emergence of new variants, updated vaccine schedules and VE data to inform their impact.

Background Job satisfaction of doctors is an important factor determining quality and performance of a health system. The aim of this study was to assess job satisfaction among doctors of the public and private primary care clinics in Malaysia and evaluate factors that could influence the job satisfaction rating. Methods This study was part of the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) Malaysia, a cross-sectional survey conducted between August 2015 and June 2016 in Malaysia. Data was collected from doctors recruited from public and private primary care clinics using a standardised questionnaire. Comparisons were made between doctors working in public and private clinics, and logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors influencing the likelihood of job satisfaction outcomes. Results A total of 221 doctors from the public and 239 doctors from the private sector completed the questionnaire. Compared to private doctors, a higher proportion of public doctors felt they were being overloaded with the administrative task (59.7% vs 36.0%) and part of the work does not make sense (33.9% vs 18.4%). Only 62.9% of public doctors felt that there was a good balance between effort and reward while a significantly higher proportion (85.8%) of private doctors reported the same. Over 80% of doctors in both sectors indicated continued interest in their job and agreed that being a doctor is a well-respected job. Logistic regression analysis showed public-private sector and practice location (urban-rural) to be significantly associated with work satisfaction outcomes. Conclusion A higher proportion of public doctors experienced pressure from administrative tasks and felt that part of their work does not make sense than their colleague in the private sector. At the same time, the majority of private doctors reported positive outcome on effort-and-reward balance compared to only one third of public doctors. The finding suggests that decreasing administrative workload and enhancing work-based supports might be the most effective ways to improve job satisfaction of primary care doctors because these are some of the main aspects of the job that doctors, especially in public clinics, are most unhappy with.

Malaysia rolled out a diverse portfolio of predominantly three COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac) beginning 24 February 2021. We evaluated vaccine effectiveness with two methods, covering 1 April to 15 September 2021: (1) the screening method for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and symptomatic COVID-19; and (2) a retrospective cohort of confirmed COVID-19 cases for COVID-19 related ICU admission and death using logistic regression. The screening method estimated partial vaccination to be 48.8% effective (95% CI: 46.8, 50.7) against COVID-19 infection and 33.5% effective (95% CI: 31.6, 35.5) against symptomatic COVID-19. Full vaccination is estimated at 87.8% effective (95% CI: 85.8, 89.7) against COVID-19 infection and 85.4% effective (95% CI: 83.4, 87.3) against symptomatic COVID-19. Among the cohort of confirmed COVID19 cases, partial vaccination with any of the three vaccines is estimated at 31.3% effective (95% CI: 28.5, 34.1) in preventing ICU admission, and 45.1% effective (95% CI: 42.6, 47.5) in preventing death. Full vaccination with any of the three vaccines is estimated at 79.1% effective (95% CI: 77.7, 80.4) in preventing ICU admission and 86.7% effective (95% CI: 85.7, 87.6) in preventing deaths. Our findings suggest that full vaccination with any of the three predominant vaccines (AZD1222, BNT162b2, and CoronaVac) in Malaysia has been highly effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19-related ICU admission, and death.

Background The integration of teleconsultation into health care systems as a complement to existing approaches to care is growing rapidly. There is, however, limited information on the extent of its implementation across low- and middle-income countries. Objective The aim of this study was to determine the availability and the extent of teleconsultation in Malaysian primary care clinics. Methods A cross-sectional study of public primary care clinics in Malaysia was conducted between November 2020 and December 2020. All clinics in Malaysia that see more than 300 daily patients were recruited. A web-based, self-administered questionnaire including questions on availability of the service, whether it uses video or telephone, and the types of services it provides was distributed to the medical officer in charge of each clinic. Results In total, 97.6% (249/255) of the clinics responded. Out of these clinics, 45.8% (114/249) provided teleconsultation. A majority of the clinics providing consultation (69/114, 60.5%) provided only telephone consultation, while 24.6% (28/114) of the clinics offered video and telephone consultation, and 14.9% (17/114) offered only video consultation. Eighty percent (92/114) of the clinics were located in urban areas. A breakdown by state showed that 17.5% (20/114) and 16.7% (19/114) of the clinics were from two larger states; other states comprised less than 10% each (range 7-9/114). For the clinics providing video consultation, funding for the service came mostly (42/45, 93%) from the Ministry of Health. Conversely, nearly 1 out of 4 (23/97) clinics that provided telephone consultation funded the service either from donations or through self-funding. Most of the clinics provided teleconsultation for diabetes and hypertension. Less than 50% of the clinics with teleconsultation used it for follow up with allied health care providers or pharmacists (video consultation, 20/45; telephone consultation, 36/97). Conclusions Our findings show that telephone consultation is more widely used than video consultation, despite a quarter of its funding being self-subsidized or obtained through donations. Also, teleconsultation was less utilized by allied health care providers and pharmacists. Plans for the expansion of teleconsultation in Malaysian primary health care should take into consideration these findings to ensure a better and more cost-effective implementation of the service.

BACKGROUND The integration of teleconsultation into health care systems as a complement to existing approaches to care is growing rapidly. There is, however, limited information on the extent of its implementation across low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine the availability and the extent of teleconsultation in Malaysian primary care clinics. METHODS A cross-sectional study of public primary care clinics in Malaysia was conducted between November 2020 and December 2020. All clinics in Malaysia that see more than 300 daily patients were recruited. A web-based, self-administered questionnaire including questions on availability of the service, whether it uses video or telephone, and the types of services it provides was distributed to the medical officer in charge of each clinic. RESULTS In total, 97.6% (249/255) of the clinics responded. Out of these clinics, 45.8% (114/249) provided teleconsultation. A majority of the clinics providing consultation (69/114, 60.5%) provided only telephone consultation, while 24.6% (28/114) of the clinics offered video and telephone consultation, and 14.9% (17/114) offered only video consultation. Eighty percent (92/114) of the clinics were located in urban areas. A breakdown by state showed that 17.5% (20/114) and 16.7% (19/114) of the clinics were from two larger states; other states comprised less than 10% each (range 7-9/114). For the clinics providing video consultation, funding for the service came mostly (42/45, 93%) from the Ministry of Health. Conversely, nearly 1 out of 4 (23/97) clinics that provided telephone consultation funded the service either from donations or through self-funding. Most of the clinics provided teleconsultation for diabetes and hypertension. Less than 50% of the clinics with teleconsultation used it for follow up with allied health care providers or pharmacists (video consultation, 20/45; telephone consultation, 36/97). CONCLUSIONS Our findings show that telephone consultation is more widely used than video consultation, despite a quarter of its funding being self-subsidized or obtained through donations. Also, teleconsultation was less utilized by allied health care providers and pharmacists. Plans for the expansion of teleconsultation in Malaysian primary health care should take into consideration these findings to ensure a better and more cost-effective implementation of the service.

ImportanceEvidence for the timing of booster vaccination after completion of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac primary vaccination is crucial to guide policy recommendations. ObjectiveTo compare the odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–related outcomes after heterologous and homologous boosting of CoronaVac at 3-month intervals and homologous boosting of BNT162b2 at 6-month intervals, with BNT162b2 primary series (2 doses) as the reference group. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based retrospective cohort study used national data for Malaysia. Participants included all individuals aged 18 years and older who received a complete primary series of CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccine and were eligible for a booster dose between November 21, 2021, and December 28, 2021. Data were analyzed from November 21, 2021, to January 7, 2022. ExposuresReceipt of a booster vs no booster and categorized into primary series BNT162b2 (2 doses of BNT162b2), primary series CoronaVac (2 doses of CoronaVac), 3 doses of BNT162b2, primary series CoronaVac plus a BNT162b2 booster, and 3 doses of CoronaVac. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. The secondary outcomes were COVID-19–related intensive care unit admission and death. All outcomes were observed from the day an individual was considered fully boosted (≥14 days after booster dose). ResultsOur cohort included 13 840 240 individuals (mean [SD] age, 39.9 [15.5] years; 7 040 298 [50.9%] men; 4 451 180 individuals [32.2%] with ≥1 comorbidities), of whom 5 081 641 individuals (36.7%) had received a booster dose. Using the primary series BNT162b2 recipients as reference, the adjusted odds against symptomatic SAR-CoV-2 infection were lower for individuals who received the primary series CoronaVac plus a BNT162b2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.06 [95% CI, 0.05-0.06]), 3 doses of CoronaVac (aOR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.06-0.10]), or 3 doses of BNT162b2 (aOR, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00-0.01]). Receipt of heterologous booster (primary series of CoronaVac plus a BNT162b2 booster) was associated with lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.17-0.18]) compared with homologous booster (3 doses of CoronaVac) for individuals aged 60 years and older (aOR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.19-0.20]). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, for individuals who received the CoronaVac primary series and a booster dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac at 3 months, the observed odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were similar to individuals who received the BNT162b2 primary series plus a third dose of BNT162b2 at 6 months. Heterologous booster is recommended for individuals aged 60 years or older who received the CoronaVac primary series, given the lower observed odds against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among those who received a BNT1612b2 booster.

Background To evaluate the effectiveness of the Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) interventions on process of care and intermediate clinical outcomes among type 2 diabetes patients. Research Design and Methods This was a quasi-experimental controlled study of multi-pronged interventions conducted in 20 intervention and 20 control public primary care clinics in Malaysia from November 2016 to June 2019. Malaysian patients aged 30 years and above with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were selected via systematic random sampling. We conducted difference-in-differences analyses of data on process of care and intermediate clinical outcomes extracted from medical records. Results We reviewed 12,017 medical records of patients with type 2 diabetes. Process of care measures improved: HbA1c tests performed within the past three months (odds ratio (OR) 3.31, 95% CI 2.13, 5.13); lipid test (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.64, 7.97), LDL (OR 4.33, 95% CI 2.16, 8.70), and urine albumin (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.12, 3.55) tests within the past year; BMI measured within the past six months (OR 15.80, 95% CI 4.78, 52.24); cardiovascular risk assessment (OR 174.65, 95% CI 16.84, 1810.80); and exercise counselling (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04, 1.33). We found no statistically significant changes in intermediate clinical outcomes. Conclusions EnPHC interventions were effective in improving process of care but not intermediate clinical outcomes for type 2 diabetes patients. The intervention package was successful in enhancing the quality of care in diabetes from the health provider perspective. Patient engagement and self-management support may be needed to bring forth changes in patient outcomes.

Aim: The purpose of this paper is to describe the recruitment strategies, the response rates and the reasons for non-response of Malaysian public and private primary care doctors in an international survey on the quality, cost and equity in primary care. Background: Low research participation by primary care doctors, especially those working in the private sector, is a challenge to quality benchmarking. Methods: Primary care doctors were sampled through multi-stage sampling. The first stage-sampling unit was the primary care clinics, which were randomly sampled from five states in Malaysia to reflect their proportions in two strata – sector (public/private) and location (urban/rural). Strategies through endorsement, personalised invitation, face-to-face interview and non-monetary incentives were used to recruit public and private doctors. Data collection was carried out by fieldworkers through structured questionnaires. Findings: A total of 221 public and 239 private doctors participated in the study. Among the public doctors, 99.5% response rates were obtained. Among the private doctors, a 32.8% response rate was obtained. Totally, 30% of private clinics were uncontactable by telephone, and when these were excluded, the overall response rate is 46.8%. The response rate of the private clinics across the states ranges from 31.5% to 34.0%. A total of 167 answered the non-respondent questionnaire. Among the non-respondents, 77.4 % were male and 22.6% female (P = 0.011). There were 33.6% of doctors older than 65 years (P = 0.003) and 15.9% were from the state of Sarawak (P = 0.016) when compared to non-respondents. Reason for non-participation included being too busy (51.8%), not interested (32.9%), not having enough patients (9.1%) and did not find it beneficial (7.9%). Our study demonstrated the feasibility of obtaining favourable response rate in a survey involving doctors from public and private primary care settings

Aim: This paper describes the study protocol, which aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention package called ‘Enhanced Primary Healthcare’ (EnPHC) on the process of care and intermediate clinical outcomes among patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension. Other outcome measures include patients’ experience and healthcare providers’ job satisfaction. Background: In 2014, almost two-thirds of Malaysia’s adult population aged 18 years or older had T2DM, hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia. An analysis of health system performance from 2016 to 2018 revealed that the control and management of diabetes and hypertension in Malaysia was suboptimal with almost half of the patients not diagnosed and just one-quarter of patients with diabetes appropriately treated. EnPHC framework aims to improve diagnosis and effective management of T2DM, hypertension or hypercholesterolaemia and their risk factors by increasing prevention, optimising management and improving surveillance of diagnosed patients. Methods: This is a quasi-experimental controlled study which involves 20 intervention and 20 control clinics in two different states in Malaysia, namely Johor and Selangor. The clinics in the two states were matched and randomly allocated to ‘intervention’ and ‘control’ arms. The EnPHC framework targets different levels from community to primary healthcare clinics and integrated referral networks. Data are collected via a retrospective chart review (RCR), patient exit survey, healthcare provider survey and an intervention checklist. The data collected are entered into tablet computers which have installed in them an offline survey application. Interrupted time series and difference-in-differences (DiD) analyses will be conducted to report outcomes.

Introduction Adequate control of hypertension is a global challenge and is the key to reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors. This study evaluates management of hypertensive patients in primary care clinics in Malaysia. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of 13 784 medical records from 20 selected public primary care clinics in Malaysia was performed for patients aged 30 years old who were diagnosed with hypertension and had at least one visit between 1st November 2016 and 30th June 2019. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for complex survey design was used to determine the association between process of care and blood pressure (BP) control among the hypertensive patients. Results Approximately 50% of hypertensive patients were obese, 38.4% of age 65 years old, 71.2% had at least one comorbidity and approximately one-third were on antihypertensive monotherapy. Approximately two-third of the hypertensive patients with diabetic proteinuria were prescribed with the appropriate choice of antihypertensive agents. Approximately half of the patients received at least 70% of the target indicated care and 42.8% had adequately controlled BP. After adjusting for covariates, patients who received counseling on exercise were positively associated with adequate BP control. Conversely, patients who were prescribed with two or more antihypertensive agents were negatively associated with good BP control. Conclusions These findings indicated that BP control was suboptimal and deficient in the process of care with consequent gaps in guidelines and actual clinical practices. This warrants a re-evaluation of the current strategies and approaches to improve the quality of hypertension management and ultimately to improve outcome.