Despite publishing and securing research grants being obligatory in research universities, the literature on the factors influencing academic productivity is relatively scarce. Thus, in this study, we aimed to determine the personal and behavioural-related factors that influence the culture of publishing and securing research grants among academicians with lower research-related performance. This cross-sectional study was conducted among 49 academic staff members of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). A self-administered questionnaire consisting of personal, attitude and behavioural (barriers, perceived stress scale, work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale, psychological well-being scale, and basic needs satisfaction scale) questions were distributed during a workshop and online. Simple linear regression (SLR) analyses were performed for each variable, followed by multiple linear regression (MLR) to identify the associated factors of research output. After adjusting for covariates, having a doctoral degree (β=0.396, 95% CI=0.221-2.146, p<0.05) and integrated regulation (β=0.574, 95% CI=0.036-3.612, p<0.05) were found to be associated with research grant acquisition (R2=0.273). Moreover, increasing age (β=0.426, 95% CI=0.088-0.397, p<0.05), living alone (β=0.331, 95% CI=0.944-6.626, p<0.05), having a doctoral degree (β=0.248, 95% CI=0.174-6.747, p<0.05), environmental mastery (β=0.318, 95% CI=0.013-0.347, p<0.05), self-acceptance (β=0.284, 95% CI=0.010-0.242, p<0.05), satisfaction incompetence (β=0.273, 95% CI=0.001-0.200, p<0.05) and relatedness (β=0.280, 95% CI=0.001-0.116, p<0.05) were found to be the factors that influence the publications produced among participants (R2 =0.423). The findings of this study could be used by management to formulate effective strategies to increase the productivity of academics in their research-related performance.

Purpose: Due to recent shifts in healthcare reimbursement models, more primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are now being performed in the outpatient setting. However, there is a lack of knowledge around the comparative outcomes of revision outpatient THA. Materials and Methods: Adults undergoing revision THA between 2010 and 2020 with 2-year follow-up data were identified on a large insurance claims database. Following stratification by inpatient versus outpatient revision THA, patients from both groups were matched 1:1 by demographics and revision characteristics. Ninety-day postoperative medical and 1- and 2-year postoperative surgical complications after matching were compared. Results: Among 67,570 patients, mean age was 65.3 years, 57.0% were female, and mean Charlson comorbidity index score was 1.72. Subsequent to 1:1 matching, 1,555 inpatient and outpatient revision THA patients were identified. Outpatient THA patients had significantly lower rates of blood transfusions (3.6% vs 5.1%, P=0.049), broken prosthesis (1 year: 0.1% vs.0.6%, P=0.027; 2 years: 0.2% vs. 0.9%, P=0.015), and other postoperative mechanical complications (1 year: 4.9% vs. 7.1%, P=0.010; 2 years: 6.2% vs. 8.4%, P=0.023). Otherwise, the data for outpatient THA patients was not statistically different from inpatient THA patients across all studied complications. Conclusion Outpatient revision THA may be a safe alternative to inpatient revision THA for carefully selected patients. Establishing patient- and case-specific parameters to optimize outcomes, satisfaction, safety, and value is critical.