6.Knowledge, attitude, and practices on rabies prevention and control among primary care providers of children 0-18 years old
Nikki Francheska L. Tubeo-Dilao ; Jonathan G. Lim ; Cheryl K. Bullo
Pediatric Infectious Disease Society of the Philippines Journal 2024;25(1):54-63
Objectives:
To determine the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) on rabies prevention and control among
primary care providers of children 0-18 years old.
Methodology:
This is an analytical cross-sectional study conducted among primary care providers of children 0-
18-years old in Barangay Sambag I, Cebu City, Philippines. A questionnaire to determine the KAP on rabies
prevention and control, originally developed by Lañada et al., was modified and contextualized to the local setting.
Respondents with at least 75% correct answers per domain were considered to have good overall knowledge,
attitude, and practices. Furthermore, each question under the above domains was analyzed separately to determine
any gaps in KAP. Results were recorded as frequencies and percentages. The association of KAP to one another
and the respondents’ profiles were analyzed using Chi-square test with a level of significance of 0.05.
Results:
Among 285 respondents, 59.3% had poor knowledge, 35.8% had wrong practices, and 21.8% had negative
attitude on rabies prevention and control. We found that 92.6% did not know that rabies is incurable. As to
practices, performing “tandok” (42.5%), or the act of removal of rabies from a wound by using an animal horn,
and applying herbal medicines (34%) were still done. Use of dog restraint (44.6%) and euthanasia (40%) weren’t
favorable to study participants. Surprisingly, non-dog owners had good knowledge and positive attitude than dog
owners.
Conclusion
Our study showed that majority of the study population had poor knowledge on rabies prevention
and control, on disease transmission, and on the incurability of rabies. While majority had a positive attitude and
correct practices, the unacceptability on the use of a dog restraint and euthanasia, especially among dog owners,
were still evident.
Rabies
;
Knowledge
7.Colonic stenting: is the bridge to surgery worth its cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis at a single Asian institution
Michelle Shi Qing KHOO ; Frederick H. KOH ; Sharmini Su SIVARAJAH ; Leonard Ming-Li HO ; Darius Kang-Lie AW ; Cheryl Xi-Zi CHONG ; Fung Joon FOO ; Winson Jianhong TAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):555-563
Purpose:
In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences.
Methods:
Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting.
Results:
Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery.
Conclusion
Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.
8.Colonic stenting: is the bridge to surgery worth its cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis at a single Asian institution
Michelle Shi Qing KHOO ; Frederick H. KOH ; Sharmini Su SIVARAJAH ; Leonard Ming-Li HO ; Darius Kang-Lie AW ; Cheryl Xi-Zi CHONG ; Fung Joon FOO ; Winson Jianhong TAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):555-563
Purpose:
In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences.
Methods:
Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting.
Results:
Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery.
Conclusion
Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.
9.Colonic stenting: is the bridge to surgery worth its cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis at a single Asian institution
Michelle Shi Qing KHOO ; Frederick H. KOH ; Sharmini Su SIVARAJAH ; Leonard Ming-Li HO ; Darius Kang-Lie AW ; Cheryl Xi-Zi CHONG ; Fung Joon FOO ; Winson Jianhong TAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):555-563
Purpose:
In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences.
Methods:
Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting.
Results:
Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery.
Conclusion
Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.
10.Colonic stenting: is the bridge to surgery worth its cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis at a single Asian institution
Michelle Shi Qing KHOO ; Frederick H. KOH ; Sharmini Su SIVARAJAH ; Leonard Ming-Li HO ; Darius Kang-Lie AW ; Cheryl Xi-Zi CHONG ; Fung Joon FOO ; Winson Jianhong TAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):555-563
Purpose:
In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences.
Methods:
Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting.
Results:
Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery.
Conclusion
Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.


Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail