Background Over the recent decades, Vietnam has attained remarkable achievements in all areas of health care. However, shortcomings including health disparities persist particularly with a rapidly aging population. This has resulted in a shift in the disease burden from communicable to noncommunicable diseases such as dementia, cancer, and diabetes. These medical conditions require long-term care, which causes an accelerating crisis for the health sector and society. The current health care system in Vietnam is unlikely to cope with these challenges. Objective The aim of this paper was to explore the opportunities, challenges, and necessary conditions for Vietnam in transforming toward a patient-centered care model to produce better health for people and reduce health care costs. Methods We examine the applicability of a personalized and integrated Bespoke Health Care System (BHS) for Vietnam using a strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat analysis and examining the successes or failures of digital health care innovations in Vietnam. We then make suggestions for successful adoption of the BHS model in Vietnam. Results The BHS model of patient-centered care empowers patients to become active participants in their own health care. Vietnam’s current policy, social, technological, and economic environment favors the transition of its health care system toward the BHS model. Nevertheless, the country is in an early stage of health care digitalization. The legal and regulatory system to protect patient privacy and information security is still lacking. The readiness to implement electronic medical records, a core element of the BHS, varies across health providers and clinical practices. The scarcity of empirical evidence and evaluation regarding the effectiveness and sustainability of digital health initiatives is an obstacle to the Vietnamese government in policymaking, development, and implementation of health care digitalization. Conclusions Implementing a personalized and integrated health care system may help Vietnam to address health care needs, reduce pressure on the health care system and society, improve health care delivery, and promote health equity. However, in order to adopt the patient-centered care system and digitalized health care, a whole-system approach in transformation and operation with a co-design in the whole span of a digital health initiative developing process are necessary.

ObjectiveTo foster a national dialogue on addressing dementia as an emerging public health problem and formulating a strategy for developing Vietnam’s national dementia plan.MethodsIn September 2018, the Vietnamese National Geriatric Hospital supported by University staff in Australia and the United States organised the first Vietnam National Dementia Conference in Hanoi.ResultsOver 270 Vietnamese dementia stakeholders and international dementia experts participated in the conference. The participants agreed dementia was a public health priority in Vietnam and identified the need for the development of Vietnam’s national dementia plan. Policymakers supported positioning dementia as a priority in the national health agenda. Research institutions created collaboration to generate scientific information for policymaking process. Funding and international supports were obtained to develop Vietnam’s national dementia plan.ConclusionStrong leadership, stakeholder engagement and international support are critical in raising awareness and advocating for the development of Vietnam’s national dementia plan.

Background Adherence to anticancer medicines is critical for the success of cancer treatments; however, nonadherence remains challenging, and there is limited evidence of interventions to improve adherence to medicines in patients with cancer. Objective This overview of reviews aimed to identify and summarize available reviews of interventions to improve adherence to oral anticancer medicines in adult cancer survivors. Methods A comprehensive search of 7 electronic databases was conducted by 2 reviewers who independently conducted the study selection, quality assessment using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2, and data extraction. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist was adapted to report the results. Results A total of 29 reviews were included in the narrative synthesis. The overall quality of the systematic reviews was low. The 4 main strategies to promote adherence were focused on education, reminders, behavior and monitoring, and multicomponent approaches. Digital technology–based interventions were reported in most reviews (27/29, 93%). A few interventions applied theories (10/29, 34%), design frameworks (2/29, 7%), or engaged stakeholders (1/29, 3%) in the development processes. The effectiveness of interventions was inconsistent between and within reviews. However, interventions using multiple strategies to promote adherence were more likely to be effective than single-strategy interventions (12/29, 41% reviews). Unidirectional communication (7/29, 24% reviews) and technology alone (11/29, 38% reviews) were not sufficient to demonstrate improvement in adherence outcomes. Nurses and pharmacists played a critical role in promoting patient adherence to oral cancer therapies, especially with the support of digital technologies (7/29, 24% reviews). Conclusions Multicomponent interventions are potentially effective in promoting patient adherence to oral anticancer medicines. The seamless integration of digital solutions with direct clinical contacts is likely to be effective in promoting adherence. Future research for developing comprehensive digital adherence interventions should be evidence-based, theory-based, and rigorously evaluated.

This study examined the use of potentially inappropriate medicines that may affect cognition (PIMcog) in people with dementia and its associated factors. Medical records of all outpatients with dementia attending a tertiary hospital in Vietnam between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, were examined. Medicine use was assessed against a list of PIMcog. Variables associated with having a PIMcog were assessed using a multiple logistic regression. Of the 128 patients, 41% used a PIMcog, 39.1% used cholinesterase inhibitors (CEIs) concomitantly with anticholinergics, and 18% used antipsychotics. The number of hospital visits (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.16) and number of treating specialists (adjusted OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.83) were associated with PIMcog use. This study highlights a high-level use of medicines that can further impair cognition or reduce the effectiveness of CEIs in people with dementia. Efforts to improve quality use of medicines for this population are warranted.

Background Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended consequences of medication use and may result in hospitalizations or deaths. Timely reporting of ADRs to regulators is essential for drug monitoring, research, and maintaining patient safety, but it has not been standardized in Australia. Objective We sought to explore the ways that ADRs are monitored or reported in Australia. We reviewed how consumers and health care professionals participate in ADR monitoring and reporting. Methods The Arksey and O’Malley framework provided a methodology to sort the data according to key themes and issues. Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Computer & Applied Sciences Complete databases were used to extract articles published from 2010 to 2021. Two reviewers screened the papers for eligibility, extracted key data, and provided descriptive analysis of the data. Results Seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The Adverse Medicine Events Line (telephone reporting service) was introduced in 2003 to support consumer reporting of ADRs; however, only 10.4% of consumers were aware of ADR reporting schemes. Consumers who experience side effects were more likely to report ADRs to their doctors or pharmacists than to the drug manufacturer. The documentation of ADR reports in hospital electronic health records showed that nurses and pharmacists were significantly less likely than doctors to omit the description of the drug reaction, and pharmacists were significantly more likely to enter the correct classification of the drug reaction than doctors. Review and analysis of all ADR reports submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration highlighted a decline in physician contribution from 28% of ADR reporting in 2003 to 4% in 2016; however, within this same time period, hospital and community pharmacists were a major source of ADR reporting (ie, 16%). In 2014, there was an increase in ADR reporting by community pharmacists following the introduction of the GuildLink ADR web-based reporting system; however, a year later, the reporting levels dropped. In 2018, the Therapeutic Goods Administration introduced a black triangle scheme on the packaging of newly approved medicines, to remind and encourage ADR reporting on new medicines, but this was only marginally successful at increasing the quantity of ADR reports. Conclusions Despite the existence of national and international guidelines for ADR reporting and management, there is substantial interinstitutional variability in the standards of ADR reporting among individual health care facilities. There is room for increased ADR reporting rates among consumers and health care professionals. A thorough assessment of the barriers and enablers to ADR reporting at the primary health care institutional levels is essential. Interventions to increase ADR reporting, for example, the black triangle scheme (alert or awareness) or GuildLink (digital health), have only had marginal effects and may benefit from further improvement revisions and awareness programs.