Adherence to the Malaysian clinical practice guideline for depression by general practitioners in private practice in Penang
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Most primary care in Malaysia is provided by general practitioners in private practice. To date, little is known about how Malaysian General Practitioners (GPs) manage patients with depression. We surveyed privately practising primary care physicians in the state of Penang, Malaysia, in relation to their experience of the Malaysian Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) in Major Depressive Disorder, their current practice and perceived barriers in managing depression effectively. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire based on the study aims and previous literature was developed by the authors and mailed to all currently registered GPs in private clinics in Penang. Survey responses were analysed using SSPS version 21. RESULTS: From a total of 386 questionnaires distributed, 112 (29%) were returned. Half of the respondents were unaware of the existence of any CPG for depression. One quarter reported not managing depression at all, while one third used anxiolytic monotherapy in moderate-severe depression. Almost 75 % of respondents reported making referrals to specialist psychiatric services for moderate-severe depression. Time constraints, patient non-adherence and a lack of depression management skills were perceived as the main barriers to depression care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need to engage privately practising primary care physicians in Malaysia to improve their skills in the management of depression. Future revisions of the Malaysian Depression CPG should directly involve more GPs from private practices at the planning, development and implementation stages, in order to increase its impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".