Search

Objectives Online health information (OHI) has been shown to influence patients' health decisions and behaviours. OHI about statins has created confusion among healthcare professionals and the public. This study explored the views and experiences of patients with high cardiovascular risk on OHI-seeking about statins and how OHI influenced their decision. Design This was a qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews. An interpretive description approach with thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Setting An urban primary care clinic in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Participants Patients aged 18 years and above who had high cardiovascular risk and sought OHI on statins were recruited. Results A total of 20 participants were interviewed. The age of the participants ranged from 38 to 74 years. Twelve (60%) participants took statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention. The duration of statin use ranged from 2 weeks to 30 years. Six themes emerged from the data analysis: (i) seeking OHI throughout the disease trajectory, (ii) active and passive approaches to seeking OHI, (iii) types of OHI, (iv) views about statin-related OHI, (v) influence of OHI on patients' health decisions, and (vi) patient–doctor communication about OHI. Conclusion This study highlights the changing information needs throughout patient journeys, suggesting the opportunity to provide needs-oriented OHI to patients. Unintentional passive exposure to OHI appears to have an influence on patients' adherence to statins. The quality of patient–doctor communication in relation to OHI-seeking behaviour remains a critical factor in patient decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for primary care consultation; yet doctors often find managing it challenging. An electronic decision support system for LBP (DeSSBack) was developed based on an evidence-based risk stratification tool to improve the management of patients with LBP in a Malaysian primary care setting. This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of DeSSBack for the conduct of a future definitive trial. Methods A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack. Results Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use. Conclusions A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency. Trial registration The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The internet has become a common source of health information; however, little is known about online health information-seeking behaviour (HISB) among patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Objectives: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of online health information-seeking and its associated factors among patients in primary care in Malaysia. We also examined the reasons for, and the sources of, online health information-seeking, patients' level of trust in the information found and what the information was used for.Methods: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted on patients who attended a primary care clinic. The questionnaire included the use of the internet to seek health information, sources and types of health information, eHealth literacy, patients' trust in online information, and how patients appraise and use online health information.Results: Out of 381 patients in this study, 54.7% (n = 208) used the internet to search for health information. Patients mainly sought information via Google (96.2%) and the most common websites that they visited were Wikipedia (45.2%) and MyHEALTH (37.5%). Higher levels of education, longer duration of internet use, and higher eHealth literacy were significantly associated with online HISB. Patients' trust in websites (45.6%) and social media (20.7%) was low when compared to trust in healthcare professionals (87.9%). Only 12.9% (n = 22) of patients had discussed online health information with their doctors.Conclusion: Online HISB was common among primary care patients; however, their eHealth literacy was low, with suboptimal appraisal skills to evaluate the accuracy of online health information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: mHealth apps potentially improve health care delivery and patient outcomes, but the uptake of mHealth in primary care is challenging, especially in low-middle-income countries.Objective: To measure factors associated with mHealth adoption among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Malaysia.Methods: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among PCPs. The usage of mHealth apps by the PCPs has divided into the use of mHealth apps to support PCPs' clinical work and recommendation of mHealth apps for patient's use. Factors associated with mHealth adoption were analysed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: Among 217 PCPs in the study, 77.0% used mHealth apps frequently for medical references, 78.3% medical calculation and 30.9% interacting with electronic health records (EHRs). Only 22.1% of PCPs frequently recommended mHealth apps to patients for tracking health information, 22.1% patient education and 14.3% use as a medical device. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions were associated with mHealth use for medical references. Family medicine trainees, working in a government practice and performance expectancy were the facilitators for the use of mHealth apps for medical calculation. Internet connectivity, performance expectancy and use by colleagues were associated with the use of mHealth with EHR. Performance expectancy was associated with mHealth apps' recommendation to patients to track health information and provide patient education.Conclusions: PCPs often used mHealth apps to support their clinical work but seldom recommended mHealth apps to their patients. Training for PCPs is needed on the appraisal and knowledge of the mHealth apps for patient use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]