Background: Incomplete childhood immunization against communicable diseases is a major concern and vaccine hesitancy remains a hurdle to overcome in primary vaccination programs. This study was to examine the parents’ vaccine knowledge, awareness and hesitancy in relation to their children’s immunization status. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study design was used. The parents who brought their children for immunization visit or follow-up at four public health clinics located in Sandakan district were invited to participate in this survey. Informed consent was obtained before each participant completed a hard copy of self-administered questionnaire in either English or Malay versions. Results: Of 405 parents responded, they generally had good knowledge and awareness of vaccines, only a small percentage (6.8%) of parents were found vaccine hesitant. There were significant differences in vaccine knowledge and awareness in those from different education levels and employment status; similarly, these two factors also significantly affected the vaccine hesitancy among the parents. The parents’ knowledge score was found to be moderately associated with their awareness (r = 0.551, p < 0.01) and inversely correlated to vaccine hesitancy (r = −0.397, p < 0.01). Most of the children (n = 376, 92.8%) in the study were immunized. The children’s immunization status was significantly associated with the parents’ education level (p = 0.025). There was also a significant difference in the total vaccine knowledge scores between the groups of parents with different child immunization status (p = 0.05). Conclusion: This study revealed that parents with higher education had a better knowledge of vaccinations, were less vaccine hesitant and were more likely to ensure that their children complete the recommended course of immunization. It is crucial to ensure parents are well-informed about the safety and efficacy of vaccines so that the children are protected from communicable diseases by the child vaccination program.

Despite the success of COVID-19 vaccines and the implementation of nonpharmaceutical public health measures, there is an enormous global need for effective therapeutics for SARS-CoV-2 infection. At present, repurposed anti-inflammatory drugs (dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and sarilumab),^1-3 monoclonal antibodies,^4-6 and antivirals (remdesivir, molnupiravir, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir)^7-9 have demonstrated treatment benefits at different stages of COVID-19.¹⁰

Older adults are among the most vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 epidemic, contributing to a large proportion of COVID-19-related death. Medication review and reconciliation by pharmacist can help reduce the number of potentially inappropriate medications but these services were halted during COVID-19. To assess the prevalence and factors associated with inappropriate medicine use among older populations with COVID-19. This was a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of medications among hospitalized older adults with COVID-19. Potentially inappropriate medication use was categorized using the Beer’s and STOPP criteria. Combining both criteria, 181 (32.7%) of the 553 patients were identified to have used at least one or more potentially inappropriate medication. A marginally higher number of inappropriate medications was documented using the Beers 2019 criteria (151 PIM in 124 patients) compared to STOPP criteria (133 PIMS in 104 patients). The long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (n = 68; 12.3%) and drugs which increases the risk of postural hypotension were the most commonly reported PIM (n = 41; 7.4%). Potentially inappropriate medication use was associated with previous history of hospital admission in the past 12 months (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.27; 95% CI 1.29–3.99) and higher number of discharge medications. Nearly, one in three older adults with COVID-19 had been prescribed a PIM, and the proportion of older adults with polypharmacy increased after discharge. This highlights the importance of having clinical pharmacist conducting medication reviews to identify PIMs and ensure medication appropriateness.

Background: Food-drug interaction (FDI) is prevalent in our day-to-day life. Widely recognised as drug expert, pharmacists are responsible to provide patient education, including on FDI, to ensure optimum safety and efficacy of treatment. Most pharmacists have knowledge and experience regarding FDI to certain extent. However, the level of knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) towards FDI among pharmacists were yet to elucidated for many countries, including for Malaysia.Objective: This study aims to assess pharmacists’ KAP on FDI, their inter-association, as well as association with sociodemographic characteristics in Sabah, Malaysia.Methods & materials: A cross-sectional study was conducted from 1 to 31 May 2023, using online, self-administered Google Form questionnaire, involving 24 government hospitals and 113 government health clinics in Sabah.Results: A total of 273 (or 35.5%) out of 768 pharmacists responded. Over two-third were female and serving government hospitals (79.6%). Mean score of KAP were 72.5 ± 14.3%, 93.2 ± 8.3% and 56.0 ± 16.7%, respectively, reflected good attitude but moderate knowledge and practice. Knowledge gaps identified include common medications such as paracetamol and metformin.Additionally, 28.2% respondents reported lack of FDI coverage during undergraduate, while merely 17.2% have received formal training on FDI after started working. Although 89.0% respondents agree that informing patients about possible FDIs is their responsibility, only 35.9% of the respondents usually or always practiced this. Such discrepancy maybe attributed to insufficient pharmacists’ knowledge on FDI, where pharmacists with good level of knowledge have almost 2 times higher odd for good level of practice, compared to those with poor/moderate knowledge (odds ratio, OR: 1.92; 95% CI 1.02–3.61; p = 0.040) in this study.Conclusion: There are significant training gaps to be filled in. Pharmacist possessing good knowledge is a prerequisite for better pharmacy practice. Adequate education strategies covering FDI should be emphasised for all pharmacy undergraduates and practising pharmacists.

Medication administration is a complex process, and nurses play a central role in this process. Errors during administration are associated with severe patient harm and significant economic burden. However, the prevalence of under-reporting makes it challenging when analysing the current landscape of medication administration error (MAE) and hinders the implementation of improvements to the existing system. The aim of this study is to describe the reasons for the occurrence of MAEs and the reasons behind the under-reporting of MAEs, to determine the estimated percentage of MAE reporting and to identify factors associated with them from the nurses’ perspective. This cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 65 questions which were divided into three sections: (i) reasons for the occurrence of MAEs, which consisted of 29 items; (ii) reasons for not reporting MAEs, which consisted of 16 items; and (iii) percentage of MAEs actually reported, which consisted of 20 items. It was distributed to 143 nurses in the neonatal intensive care units of five public hospitals in Malaysia. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with MAE reporting. The estimated percentage of MAE reporting was 30.6%. The most common reasons for MAEs were inadequate nursing staff (5.14 [SD 1.25]), followed by drugs which look alike (4.65 [SD 1.06]) and similar drug packaging (4.41 [SD 1.18]). The most common reasons for not reporting MAEs were that nursing administration focuses on the individual rather than looking at the systems as a potential cause of the error (4.56 [SD 1.32]) and that too much emphasis is placed on MAEs as a measure of the quality of nursing care (4.31 [SD 1.23]). Factors statistically significant with MAE reporting were administration response (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 6.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.01–23.67; P = 0.002), reporting effort (AOR = 3.67; 95% CI = 1.68–8.01; P = 0.001), and nurses with advanced diploma (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.13–0.65; P = 0.003). Our findings show that under-reporting of MAEs is still common and less than a third of the respondents reported MAEs. Therefore, to encourage error reporting, emphasis should be placed on the benefits of reporting, adopting a non-punitive approach, and creating a blame-free culture.