32 research outputs found

    Having a Family Doctor is Associated with Some Better Patient-Reported Outcomes of Primary Care Consultations

    Get PDF
    Background: Hong Kong (HK) has pluralistic primary care that is provided by a variety of doctors. The aim of our study was to assess patient-reported outcomes of primary care consultations in HK and whether having a family doctor (FD) made any difference. Methods: We interviewed by telephone 3148 subjects from 5174 contacted households (response rate 60.8%) randomly selected from the general population of HK about the experience of their last primary care consultations in September 2007 and April 2008. We compared the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-centered process of care in those with a FD, those with other types of regular primary care doctors (ORD) and those without any regular primary care doctor (NRD). PRO included patient enablement, global improvement in health, overall satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending their doctors to family and friends. Patient-centered process of care indicators was explanations about the illness, and address of patient’s concerns. Results: One thousand one hundred fifty, 746, and 1157 reported to have FD, ORD, and NRD, respectively. Over 80% of those with FD consulted their usual primary care doctors in the last consultation compared with 27% of those with NRD. Compared with subjects having ORD or NRD, subjects with FD reported being more enabled after the consultation and were more likely to recommend their doctors to family and friends. Subjects with FD and ORD were more likely than those having NRD to report a global improvement in health and satisfaction. FD group was more likely than the other two groups to report receiving an explanation on the diagnosis, nature, and expected course of the illness, and having their concerns addressed. Patient enablement was associated with explanation of diagnosis, nature, and expected course of illness, and address of patient’s concerns. Conclusion: People with a regular FD were more likely to feel being enabled and to experience patient-centered care in consultations.published_or_final_versio

    Simple Non-laboratory- and Laboratory-based Risk Assessment Algorithms and Nomogram for Detecting Undiagnosed Diabetes Mellitus

    Get PDF
    Background: To develop a simple nomogram which can be used to predict the risk of diabetes mellitus (DM) in asymptomatic non-diabetic general population based on non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk algorithms. Methods: Anthropometric data, plasma fasting glucose, full lipid profile, exercise habit and family history of DM were collected from Chinese non-diabetic subjects aged 18-70. Logistic regression analysis was performed on the data of a random sample of 2518 subjects to construct non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk assessment algorithms for the detection of undiagnosed DM; both algorithms were validated on the data of the remaining sample (n=839). Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 statistic and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were employed to assess the calibration and discrimination of the different DM risk algorithms. Results: Of 3357 subjects recruited, 271 (8.1%) had undiagnosed DM defined by fasting glucose≥7.0mmol/L or 2-hour post-load plasma glucose≥11.1mmol/L after oral glucose tolerance test. The non-laboratory-based risk algorithm, with score ranging from 0 to 33, included age, body mass index, family history of DM, regular exercise and uncontrolled blood pressure; the laboratory-based risk algorithm, with score ranging from 0 to 37, added triglyceride level to the risk factors. Both algorithms demonstrated acceptable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test: P=0.229 and P=0.483, respectively) and discrimination (AUC: 0.709 and 0.711, respectively) for the detection of undiagnosed DM. The optimal cutoff point on the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 18 for the detection of undiagnosed DM in both algorithms. Conclusions: Simple-to-use nomogram for detecting undiagnosed DM has been developed using the validated non-laboratory-based and laboratory-based risk algorithms.postprin

    Comparing self-reported reactogenicity between adolescents and adults following the use of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) messenger RNA Covid-19 vaccine: a prospective cohort study

    Get PDF
    Objectives: Although clinical data have shown that the BNT162b2 vaccine, which is widely used in many countries, is safe and effective as a protection against the Covid-19 infection, extant research in adverse reactions using real-world data of various socio-demographic characteristics is scant. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study to compare age differences in self-reported reactogenicity of BNT162b2 in Hong Kong. A total of 1,516 participants were intensively followed up for two weeks following both doses of BNT162b2 vaccination, during which their basic demographic, health conditions, and medication information were collected. Results: Results from generalized mixed model showed that compared with adults aged 18 – 59, older adults aged 60 or above had a lower risk of adverse reactions, and adolescents aged 12 – 17 had a moderately higher risk. Conclusions: Results of this study should be informative to parents considering BNT162b2 vaccination for their children in that moderately increased reactogenicity compared with adults is anticipated

    Herpes zoster related hospitalisation after inactivated (CoronaVac) and mRNA (BNT162b2) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a self-controlled case series and nested case-control study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Stimulation of immunity by vaccination may elicit adverse events. There is currently inconclusive evidence on the relationship between herpes zoster related hospitalization and COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of inactivated virus (CoronaVac, Sinovac) and mRNA (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) COVID-19 vaccine on the risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization. METHODS: Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis was conducted using the data from the electronic health records in Hospital Authority and COVID-19 vaccination records in the Department of Health in Hong Kong. We conducted the SCCS analysis including patients with a first primary diagnosis of herpes zoster in the hospital inpatient setting between February 23 and July 31, 2021. A confirmatory analysis by nested case-control method was also conducted. Each herpes zoster case was randomly matched with ten controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Conditional Poisson regression and logistic regression models were used to assess the potential excess rates of herpes zoster after vaccination. FINDINGS: From February 23 to July 31, 2021, a total of 16 and 27 patients were identified with a first primary hospital diagnosis of herpes zoster within 28 days after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. The incidence of herpes zoster was 7.9 (95% Confidence interval [CI]: 5.2–11.5) for CoronaVac and 7.1 (95% CI: 4.1–11.5) for BNT162b2 per 1,000,000 doses administered. In SCCS analysis, CoronaVac vaccination was associated with significantly higher risk of herpes zoster within 14 days after first dose (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]=2.67, 95% CI: 1.08–6.59) but not in other periods afterwards compared to the baseline period. Regarding BNT162b2 vaccination, a significantly increased risk of herpes zoster was observed after first dose up to 14 days after second dose (0-13 days after first dose: aIRR=5.23, 95% CI: 1.61–17.03; 14–27 days after first dose: aIRR=5.82, 95% CI: 1.62–20.91; 0-13 days after second dose: aIRR=5.14, 95% CI: 1.29–20.47). Using these relative rates, we estimated that there has been an excess of approximately 5 and 7 cases of hospitalization as a result of herpes zoster after every 1,000,000 doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination, respectively. The findings in the nested case control analysis showed similar results. INTERPRETATION: We identified an increased risk of herpes zoster related hospitalization after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations. However, the absolute risks of such adverse event after CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccinations were very low. In locations where COVID-19 is prevalent, the protective effects on COVID-19 from vaccinations will greatly outweigh the potential side effects of vaccination. FUNDING: The project was funded by Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No.COVID19F01). FTTL (Francisco Tsz Tsun Lai) and ICKW (Ian Chi Kei Wong)’s posts were partly funded by D^{2}4H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission

    Multimorbidity and adverse events of special interest associated with Covid-19 vaccines in Hong Kong

    Get PDF
    Prior research using electronic health records for Covid-19 vaccine safety monitoring typically focuses on specific disease groups and excludes individuals with multimorbidity, defined as ≥2 chronic conditions. We examine the potential additional risk of adverse events 28 days after the first dose of CoronaVac or Comirnaty imposed by multimorbidity. Using a territory-wide public healthcare database with population-based vaccination records in Hong Kong, we analyze a retrospective cohort of patients with chronic conditions. Thirty adverse events of special interest according to the World Health Organization are examined. In total, 883,416 patients are included and 2,807 (0.3%) develop adverse events. Results suggest vaccinated patients have lower risks of adverse events than unvaccinated individuals, multimorbidity is associated with increased risks regardless of vaccination, and the association of vaccination with adverse events is not modified by multimorbidity. To conclude, we find no evidence that multimorbidity imposes extra risks of adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination

    Self-reported reactogenicity of CoronaVac (Sinovac) compared with Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech): A prospective cohort study with intensive monitoring

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: CoronaVac (Sinovac) Covid-19 vaccine has recently been approved for emergency use by the World Health Organization. However, data on its reactogenicity in real-world settings is scant. This study aimed to compare self-reported post-vaccination adverse reactions between CoronaVac and Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech). METHODS: We adopted a prospective cohort study design using online surveys from the day of first-dose vaccination with intensive follow-up through two weeks after the second dose (11 time points). The primary outcome was adverse reactions (any versus none) and secondary outcomes were the sub-categories of adverse reactions (local, systemic, and severe allergic reactions). Potential effect modification across multimorbidity status, older age, and sex was examined. RESULTS: In total, 2,098 participants who were scheduled to complete the 14th-day survey were included, with 46.2% receiving Comirnaty. Retention rate two weeks after the second dose was 81.0% for the CoronaVac group and 83.6% for the Comirnaty group. Throughout the follow-up period, 801 (82.7%) of those receiving Comirnaty and 543 (48.1%) of those receiving CoronaVac reported adverse reactions. Adjusted analysis suggested that compared with Comirnaty, CoronaVac was associated with 83%-reduced odds of any adverse reactions [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15–0.20], 92%-reduced odds of local adverse reactions (AOR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.06–0.09), and 76%-reduced odds of systemic adverse reactions (AOR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.16–0.28). No significant effect modification was identified. CONCLUSION: This post-marketing study comparing the reactogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines suggests a lower risk of self-reported adverse reactions following vaccination with CoronaVac compared with Comirnaty
    corecore