The EQ-5D (Euroqol) is a valid generic instrument for measuring quality of life in patients with dyspepsia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is little information of the validity of generic instruments in measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with dyspepsia. We aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the EQ-5D, a brief and simple instrument, in measuring HRQOL in adult patients with dyspepsia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consecutive adults with dyspepsia attending the Gastroenterology clinic in a tertiary referral center were interviewed with the EQ-5D (both English and Malay versions), the short-form Nepean Dyspepsia Index (SF-NDI), the SF-36 and Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ). Known-groups and convergent construct validity were investigated by testing hypotheses at attribute and overall levels. A repeat telephone interview was conducted 2 weeks later to assess test-retest reliability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 113 patients (mean (SD) age: 53.7 (14) years; 49.5% male; 24.8% Malays, 37.2% Chinese; 70.8% functional dyspepsia) were recruited. Response rate was 100% with nil missing data. Known-groups validation revealed 20/26 hypotheses fulfillment. Patients with more severe dyspepsia reported more problems with their usual activity (p = 0.07) and pain (p = 0.06) and demonstrated lower median VAS scores (60 vs 70, p = 0.002) and EQ-5D utility scores (0.72 vs 0.78, p = 0.002). Those reporting problems in various EQ-5D dimensions had significantly lower scores in relevant SF-36 and SF-NDI dimensions. The overall EQ-5D utility score also demonstrated good correlation with the SF-36 summary physical and mental scores and the SF-NDI total score. Intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.55 – 0.76).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The EQ-5D is an acceptable, valid and reliable generic instrument for measuring HRQOL in adult patients with dyspepsia.</p

Quality of life in South East Asian patients who consult for dyspepsia: Validation of the short form Nepean Dyspepsia Index

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Guidelines and mindlines: why do clinical staff over-diagnose malaria in Tanzania? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Malaria over-diagnosis in Africa is widespread and costly both financially and in terms of morbidity and mortality from missed diagnoses. An understanding of the reasons behind malaria over-diagnosis is urgently needed to inform strategies for better targeting of antimalarials. METHODS: In an ethnographic study of clinical practice in two hospitals in Tanzania, 2,082 patient consultations with 34 clinicians were observed over a period of three months at each hospital. All clinicians were also interviewed individually as well as being observed during routine working activities with colleagues. Interviews with five tutors and 10 clinical officer students at a nearby clinical officer training college were subsequently conducted. RESULTS: Four, primarily social, spheres of influence on malaria over-diagnosis were identified. Firstly, the influence of initial training within a context where the importance of malaria is strongly promoted. Secondly, the influence of peers, conforming to perceived expectations from colleagues. Thirdly, pressure to conform with perceived patient preferences. Lastly, quality of diagnostic support, involving resource management, motivation and supervision. Rather than following national guidelines for the diagnosis of febrile illness, clinician behaviour appeared to follow 'mindlines': shared rationales constructed from these different spheres of influence. Three mindlines were identified in this setting: malaria is easier to diagnose than alternative diseases; malaria is a more acceptable diagnosis; and missing malaria is indefensible. These mindlines were apparent during the training stages as well as throughout clinical careers. CONCLUSION: Clinicians were found to follow mindlines as well as or rather than guidelines, which incorporated multiple social influences operating in the immediate and the wider context of decision making. Interventions to move mindlines closer to guidelines need to take the variety of social influences into account

Socio-Economic Factors Related to Drinking Water Source and Sanitation in Malaysia

Access to improved water and sanitation is essential. We describe these practices in Malaysia using data from a nationwide community survey and used logistic regression to assess the determinants. Of the 7978 living quarters (LQs), 58.3% were in urban areas. About 2.4%, 0.5% and 27.4% of LQs had non-improved water sources, non-improved toilet types and improper domestic waste disposal, respectively. Open burning was practiced by 26.1%. Water source was a problem for long houses (10.5%), squatters (8.5%) and shared houses (4.0%). Non-improved toilet types were 11.9% for squatters and 4.8% for shared houses. Improper domestic waste disposal practices were higher for occupants of village houses (64.2%), long houses (54.4%), single houses (45.8%) and squatters (35.6%). An increase in education or income level was associated with a decrease in improper domestic waste disposal methods. House type significantly affected water and sanitation after adjusting for the effects of other variables. Lower household income was associated with non-improved toilet types and improper domestic waste disposal. Lower education and rural location influenced domestic waste disposal. The water and toilet facilities in Malaysia were generally good, while domestic waste management practices could be improved. There remain pockets of communities with environmental challenges for the nation

Research funding impact and priority setting – advancing universal access and quality healthcare research in Malaysia

Abstract Background Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) in the Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia was initiated more than a decade ago to drive effort toward research for informed decision and policy-making. This study assessed the impact of funded prioritised research and identified research gaps to inform future priority setting initiatives for universal access and quality healthcare in Malaysia. Methods Research impact of universal access and quality healthcare projects funded by the National Institutes of Health Malaysia were assessed based on the modified Payback Framework, addressing categories of informing policy, knowledge production, and benefits to health and health sector. For the HRPS process, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted and adopted, with the incorporation of stakeholder values using weights and monetary allocation survey. Workshop discussions and interviews with stakeholders and research groups were conducted to identify research gaps, with the use of conceptual frameworks to guide the search. Results Seventeen ongoing and 50 completed projects were identified for research funding impact analysis. Overall, research fund allocation differed from stakeholders’ expectation. For research impact, 48 out of 50 completed projects (96.0%) contributed to some form of policy-making efforts. Almost all completed projects resulted in outputs that contributed to knowledge production and were expected to lead to health and health sector benefits. The HRPS process led to the identification of research priority areas that stemmed from ongoing and new issues identified for universal access and quality healthcare. Conclusion The concerted efforts of evaluation of research funding impact, prioritisation, dissemination and policy-maker involvement were valuable for optimal health research resource utilisation in a resource constrained developing country. Embedding impact evaluation into a priority setting process and funding research based on national needs could facilitate health research investment to reach its potential