Prepared and highly committed despite the risk of COVID-19 infection: a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians' concerns and coping strategies in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are first points-of-contact between suspected cases and the healthcare system in the current COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines PCPs' concerns, impact on personal lives and work, and level of pandemic preparedness in the context of COVID-19 in Singapore. We also examine factors and coping strategies that PCPs have used to manage stress during the outbreak. METHODS: Two hundred and sixteen PCPs actively practicing in either a public or private clinic were cluster sampled via email invitation from three primary care organizations in Singapore from 6th to 29th March 2020. Participants completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire consisting of items on work- and non-work-related concerns, impact on personal and work life, perceived pandemic preparedness, stress-reduction factors, and personal coping strategies related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 158 questionnaires were usable for analyses. PCPs perceived themselves to be at high risk of COVID-19 infection (89.9%), and a source of risk (74.7%) and concern (71.5%) to loved ones. PCPs reported acceptance of these risks (91.1%) and the need to care for COVID-19 patients (85.4%). Overall perceived pandemic preparedness was extremely high (75.9 to 89.9%). PCPs prioritized availability of personal protective equipment, strict infection prevention guidelines, accessible information about COVID-19, and well-being of their colleagues and family as the most effective stress management factors. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs continue to serve willingly on the frontlines of this pandemic despite the high perception of risk to themselves and loved ones. Healthcare organizations should continue to support PCPs by managing both their psychosocial (e.g. stress management) and professional (e.g. pandemic preparedness) needs.

Evaluating the impact of self-monitoring of blood glucose frequencies on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: International diabetes guidelines have not established the frequencies of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who do not use insulin. The present study aimed to assess the impact of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) frequencies on the glucose control and other outcomes in non-insulin-treated patients with T2D. METHODS: A literature search was performed in four databases. Randomised controlled trials with ≥6-month follow-up duration that compared the impact of different frequencies of SMBG on glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were included. Studies with abstract only or reported effects of SMBG as a secondary outcome were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 1557 studies identified, 12 RCTs with a total of 3350 patients were analysed. Overall, performing SMBG for 8 to 14 times per week was correlated with a better HbA1c control at 6 months (MD -0.46%, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.39) and 12 months (MD -0.20%, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.11). However, up to seven measurements of SMBG per week did not significantly affect glycaemic control. In addition, performing SMBG between 8 and 14 times per week was also associated with improved BMI (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08). When the results of SMBG were applied to adjust diabetes medication, a significant reduction in HbA1c levels was observed in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: Eight to 14 measurements of SMBG per week were associated with an improved glycaemic control and a reduced BMI in patients with T2D not using insulin.

SABA prescriptions and asthma management practices in Singapore: results from a cross-sectional, observational SABINA III study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate asthma characteristics and treatment patterns, including short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions, in primary and specialist care in the Singapore cohort of the SABA use IN Asthma (SABINA III) study. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study. SETTING: Multicentre study conducted at five sites across Singapore. METHODS: In patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years), data on demographics, disease characteristics and asthma treatment prescriptions were collected using electronic case report forms. Patients were classified by investigator-defined asthma severity (guided by 2017 Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations) and practice type (primary/specialist care). RESULTS: Of the 205 patients analysed (mean (SD) age, 53.6 (16.8) years; female, 62%), 55.9% were enrolled by specialists and 44.1% by primary care physicians. Most study patients (80.5%) had moderate-to-severe asthma (86.0% in specialist care and 74.4% in primary care). In the 12 months before study enrolment, 18.0% of patients experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation. Asthma was well or partly controlled in 78.0% of patients. Overall, 17.1% of all patients were overprescribed SABA (≥3 SABA canisters/year) in the preceding 12 months, and overprescription was greater in specialist versus primary care (26.3% vs 5.6%). Only 2.9% of patients were prescribed SABA monotherapy, while 41.0% received SABA in addition to maintenance therapy. Among the latter, 40.5% were overprescribed SABA. Overall, a higher percentage of patients prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters (vs 0-2 SABA canisters) were assessed as having uncontrolled asthma during the study visit (42.9% vs 17.6%). Maintenance therapy in the form of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS/long-acting ß2 agonist fixed-dose combinations were prescribed to 14.1% and 84.9% of patients, respectively, in the 12 months before enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: In this Singapore cohort, ~17% of all patients and more than 40% of patients prescribed SABA in addition to maintenance therapy were overprescribed SABA. These findings emphasise the need to align clinical practices with the latest evidence-based treatment recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03857178.

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening among Singapore Women: A Qualitative Approach.

OBJECTIVE: The uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening services among women in Singapore remains inadequate. Little is known about how gender norms influence women's decision to undergo these screening services in a multi-ethnic Asian context. This research aimed to explore how gender-based qualitative factors influence women's decision to screen. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews from 40 racially diverse women aged 25 and above who had visited polyclinics for their chronic disease management. Women were recruited using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy to ensure representation of their views from the three major ethnic groups and based on inclusion criteria. Interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via telephone call. Interviews were audiotaped and lasted 30 minutes on average. Interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. The data was transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Gender norms and gender non-concordance with the healthcare professionals did not inhibit women from undergoing breast and cervical cancer screening services to a large extent. Women were empowered and had a central role in decision-making for screening services. Healthcare initiatives such as subsidies and mobile health applications facilitated the uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening services but can be improved further. Some of the barriers reported by Malay Muslims were not dissimilar to previous qualitative studies with women in this ethnic and religious group. CONCLUSION: Gender socialisation, empowerment, and healthcare initiatives did not inhibit our study participants' decision to undergo breast and cervical cancer screening services. However, new initiatives and strengthening of the existing healthcare initiatives are needed to overcome any remnants of gender-related nuances and convert non-doers into doers.

Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus and polypharmacy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: This study examined the effectiveness of a collaborative care model on clinical and humanistic outcomes, medical cost, productivity loss, and its cost-effectiveness in managing uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: A randomized controlled study was conducted in two outpatient health institutions in Singapore. Patients aged above 21 years with HbA1c > 7% and polypharmacy were included. Eligible patients were randomized into the intervention (collaborative care) and control (usual care) arms. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to the control arm, the intervention arm achieved significantly greater glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (mean difference: 0.25, 95%CI: [0.001, 0.50], p = 0.049) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (+0.011, 95%CI: [0.003, 0.019], p = 0.011) at 12 months. The costs per additional HbA1c and QALY improvements over one year were $40.52 and $920.91 respectively. Activity impairment was lower in the intervention group both at 6 months (12.7% vs 19.0%; p = 0.022) and at 12 months (6.7% vs 14.0%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The collaborative care model achieved earlier HbA1c reduction and reduced patients' activity impairment without decreasing work productivity or increasing medical costs. This intervention is cost-effective for improving glycemic control and quality of life in patients with T2DM.

The impact of COVID-19 on private and public primary care physicians: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians (PCP) are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19 as they manage patients with fever or respiratory symptoms, but it is intuitive that private and public practice PCPs may face different challenges during this pandemic. This study compared work- and non-work-related concerns, COVID-19's impact on personal and professional lives, and perceived pandemic preparedness between private and public PCPs in Singapore. METHODS: 216 PCPs who were a registered member of either the National University Polyclinics, National University Health System Primary Care Network or College of Family Physicians Singapore, participated in this online cross-sectional study. The data collection period lasted from 6th March 2020 to 29th March 2020. RESULTS: A final sample of 172 questionnaires were analysed. Private PCPs tended to be older and more experienced. Perceived COVID-19 exposure and overall preparedness was high in both groups. More private PCPs perceived their exposure risk as unacceptable, aOR = 3.96 (1.07, 14.62); that they should not be caring for COVID-19 patients, aOR = 3.55 (1.23, 10.24); and perceived more stigma against their loved ones, aOR = 4.27 (1.74, 10.44). Private PCPs felt less well-trained, aOR = 0.05 (0.01, 0.23); and supported, aOR = 0.14 (0.03, 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Private PCPs are more likely to be self-employed or work in smaller practices where COVID-19 infection could mean loss of livelihood. As a healthcare system without primary care is crippled in its ability to manage outbreaks, authorities should respond appropriately to the needs of their general practitioners and family physicians.