Shim Chen Kiong

A lack of guidance on economic evaluations for oral cancer screening programs forms a challenge for policymakers and researchers to fill the knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. This systematic review thus aims to compare the outcomes and design of such evaluations. A search for economic evaluations of oral cancer screening was performed on Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and EBSCO Open Dissertations. The quality of studies was appraised using QHES and the Philips Checklist. Data abstraction was based on reported outcomes and study design characteristics. Of the 362 studies identified, 28 were evaluated for eligibility. The final six studies reviewed consisted of modeling approaches (n = 4), a randomized controlled trial (n = 1), and a retrospective observational study (n = 1). Screening initiatives were mostly shown to be cost-effective compared to non-screening. However, inter-study comparisons remained ambiguous due to large variations. The observational and randomized controlled trials provided considerably accurate evidence of implementation costs and outcomes. Modeling approaches, conversely, appeared more feasible for the estimation of long-term consequences and the exploration of strategy options. The current evidence of the cost-effectiveness of oral cancer screening remains heterogeneous and inadequate to support its institutionalization. Nevertheless, evaluations incorporating modeling methods may provide a practical and robust solution.

Caregivers providing care for their family members with oral cancer usually endure the caregiving burden in silence, which affects their quality of life and necessitates the need for supportive care. The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between the quality of life (QOL) of oral cancer caregivers and their supportive care needs (SCN) in Malaysia. The Malaysian versions of the Caregiver Oncology Quality of Life Questionnaire (M-CarGOQoL) and the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool for Cancer Caregivers (M-CNAT-C) were self-administered by 56 family caregivers of oral cancer patients from five tertiary hospitals throughout Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak between October and December 2021. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were employed, and the significance level was set at p < 0.05. The mean score for the QOL of caregivers was 76.16 ± 16.01, with the lowest scores in the psychological well-being (64.87 ± 30.12) and self-esteem (68.64 ± 28.29) domains. The mean score for SCN of caregivers was 36.42 ± 24.16, with the highest scores in the healthcare staff (58.44 ± 33.80) and information (55.35 ± 29.98) domains. The correlation between QOL and SCN was moderately inversed, (r(54) = 0.58, p < 0.01). There was a significant effect of caregiving duration (3 h/day) on the combined dependent variables (QOL and SCN), F(2, 53) = 5.006, p < 0.01, partial η² = 0.16. QOL and caregiving duration accounted for a significant 43% of SCN, R² = 0.43, adjusted R² = 0.41, F(2, 53) = 20.32, p < 0.01. In conclusion, oral cancer caregivers with poorer QOL have higher SCN. It is recommended that oral cancer caregivers be recognized by healthcare providers in order to deliver holistic patient care.

This study aims to evaluate the time-to-treatment of oral cancer and potentially malignant oral disorders (PMOD) in a Malaysian public healthcare setting while exploring its contributing factors. It consists of (1) a cross-sectional patient survey to quantify time to seek care and barriers faced, and (2) a retrospective medical record abstraction to determine treatment and management intervals. Time intervals were aggregated and analyzed by their primary contributor—patient, professional, or healthcare system. The average total time-to-treatment of the 104 patients investigated was 167 days (SD = 158). This was predominantly contributed by the patient interval of 120 days (SD = 152). In total, 67.0% of patients delayed their visit to primary healthcare centers because they assumed the lesions were not dangerous or of concern. Additionally, there was a significant difference between patients ‘facing’ and ‘not facing’ difficulties to seek care, at 157 vs. 103 days (p = 0.028). System and professional delays were comparably shorter, at 33 days (SD = 20) and 10 days (SD = 15) respectively. Both demonstrated a significant difference between oral cancer and PMOD, at 43 vs. 29 days (p < 0.001) and 5 vs. 17 days (p < 0.001). The findings reiterate the need to reform current initiatives to better promote early lesion recognition by patients and implement strategies for the elimination of their access barriers.