↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the modifiable health systems barriers to hypertension management in Malaysia: a multi-method health systems appraisal approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
270 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding the modifiable health systems barriers to hypertension management in Malaysia: a multi-method health systems appraisal approach
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0916-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabelle Risso-Gill, Dina Balabanova, Fadhlina Majid, Kien Keat Ng, Khalid Yusoff, Feisul Mustapha, Charlotte Kuhlbrandt, Robby Nieuwlaat, J.-D. Schwalm, Tara McCready, Koon K. Teo, Salim Yusuf, Martin McKee

Abstract

The growing burden of non-communicable diseases in middle-income countries demands models of care that are appropriate to local contexts and acceptable to patients in order to be effective. We describe a multi-method health system appraisal to inform the design of an intervention that will be used in a cluster randomized controlled trial to improve hypertension control in Malaysia. A health systems appraisal was undertaken in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, and poorer-resourced rural sites in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah. Building on two systematic reviews of barriers to hypertension control, a conceptual framework was developed that guided analysis of survey data, documentary review and semi-structured interviews with key informants, health professionals and patients. The analysis followed the patients as they move through the health system, exploring the main modifiable system-level barriers to effective hypertension management, and seeking to explain obstacles to improved access and health outcomes. The study highlighted the need for the proposed intervention to take account of how Malaysian patients seek treatment in both the public and private sectors, and from western and various traditional practitioners, with many patients choosing to seek care across different services. Patients typically choose private care if they can afford to, while others attend heavily subsidised public clinics. Public hypertension clinics are often overwhelmed by numbers of patients attending, so health workers have little time to engage effectively with patients. Treatment adherence is poor, with a widespread belief, stemming from concepts of traditional medicine, that hypertension is a transient disturbance rather than a permanent asymptomatic condition. Drug supplies can be erratic in rural areas. Hypertension awareness and education material are limited, and what exist are poorly developed and ineffective. Despite having a relatively well funded health system offering good access to care, Malaysia's health system still has significant barriers to effective hypertension management. The study uncovered major patient-related barriers to the detection and control of hypertension which will have an impact on the design and implementation of any hypertension intervention. Appropriate models of care must take account of the patient modifiable health systems barriers if they are to have any realistic chance of success; these findings are relevant to many countries seeking to effectively control hypertension despite resource constraints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 268 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 18%
Student > Bachelor 34 13%
Researcher 25 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 52 19%
Unknown 71 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 17%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 78 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,712,330
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,141
of 8,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,965
of 269,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#19
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.