BackgroundAntibiotic overuse is driving the emergence of antibiotic resistance worldwide. Good data on prescribing behaviours of healthcare providers are needed to support antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. This study examined the differences in antibiotic prescribing rates of public and private primary care clinics in Malaysia.MethodsWe used data from the National Medical Care Survey (NMCS), a nationwide cluster sample of Malaysian public and private primary care clinics in 2014. NMCS contained demographic, diagnoses and prescribing from 129 public clinics and 416 private clinics. We identified all encounters who were prescribed antibiotic and analyse the prescribing rate, types of antibiotics, and diagnoses that resulted in antibiotic.ResultsFive thousand eight hundred ten encounters were prescribed antibiotics; antibiotic prescribing rate was 21.1 % (public clinics 6.8 %, private clinics 30.8 %). Antibiotic prescribing was higher in private clinics where they contributed almost 87 % of antibiotics prescribed in primary care. Upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) was the most frequent diagnosis in patients receiving antibiotic therapy and accounted for 49.2 % of prescriptions. Of the patients diagnosed with URTI, 46.2 % received antibiotic treatment (public 16.8 %, private 57.7 %). Penicillins, cephalosporins and macrolides were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics and accounted for 30.7, 23.6 and 16.0 % of all antibiotics, respectively. More recently available broad-spectrum antibiotics such as azithromycin and quinolones were more frequently prescribed in private clinics.ConclusionsAntibiotic prescribing rates are high in both public and private primary care settings in Malaysia, especially in the latter. This study provides evidence of excessive and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting conditions. These data highlights the needs for more concerted interventions targeting both prescribers and public. Improvement strategies should focus on reducing inappropriate prescribing.

No abstract

Given emerging evidence of immune escape in the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron viral variant, and its dominance, effectiveness of heterologous and homologous boosting schedules commonly used in low-to-middle income countries needs to be re-evaluated. We conducted a test-negative design using consolidated national administrative data in Malaysia to compare the effectiveness of homologous and heterologous BNT162b2, CoronaVac, and AZD1222 booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection in predominant-Delta and predominant-Omicron periods. Across both periods, homologous CoronaVac and AZD1222 boosting demonstrated lower effectiveness than heterologous boosting for CoronaVac and AZD1222 primary vaccination recipients and homologous BNT162b2 boosting. Broadly, marginal effectiveness was smaller by 40–50 percentage points in the Omicron period than the Delta period. Without effective and accessible second-generation vaccines, heterologous boosting using BNT162b2 for inactivated and vectored primary vaccination recipients is preferred.

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 COVID-19 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.

BackgroundMalaysia has achieved universal health coverage since 1980s through the expansion of direct public provision, particularly in rural areas. However, no systematic examination of the rural-urban distribution of primary care services and resources has been conducted to date for policy impact evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 316 public and 597 private primary care clinics, selected through proportionate stratified random sampling, from June 2011 through February 2012. Using a questionnaire developed based on the World Health Organization toolkits on monitoring health systems strengthening, we examined the availability of primary care services/resources and the associations between service/resource availability and clinic ownership, locality, and patient load. Data were weighted for all analyses to account for the complex survey design and produce unbiased national estimates.ResultsPrivate primary care clinics and doctors outnumbered their public counterparts by factors of 5.6 and 3.9, respectively, but the private clinics were significantly less well-equipped with basic facilities and provided a more limited range of services. Per capita densities of primary care clinics and workforce were higher in urban areas (2.2 clinics and 15.1 providers per 10,000 population in urban areas versus 1.1 clinics and 11.7 providers per 10,000 population in rural areas). Within the public sector, the distribution of health services and resources was unequal and strongly favored the urban clinics. Regression analysis revealed that rural clinics had lower availability of services and resources after adjusting for ownership and patient load, but the associations were not significant except for workforce availability (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–0.96).ConclusionsTargeted primary care expansion in rural areas could be an effective first step towards achieving universal health coverage, especially in countries with limited healthcare resources. Nonetheless, geographic expansion alone is inadequate to achieve effective coverage in a dichotomous primary care system, and the role of the private sector in primary care delivery should not be overlooked.