METHODS: A survey was completed by 657 veterinary students and 244 clinical supervisors from 25 veterinary schools, from which rankings of the preparedness characteristics were derived. Significant rank differences were assessed using confidence intervals and permutation tests.
RESULTS: 'Honesty, integrity and dependability' was the most important characteristic according to both groups. The three characteristics with the largest rank differences were: students' awareness of their own and others' mental wellbeing and the importance of self-care; being willing to try new practical skills with support (students ranked both of these higher); and having a clinical reasoning framework for common problems (supervisors ranked higher).
LIMITATIONS: Using pooled data from many schools means that the results are not necessarily representative of the perspectives at any one institution.
CONCLUSION: There are both similarities and differences in the perspectives of students and supervisors regarding which characteristics are more important for WCT. This provides insights that can be used by educators, curriculum developers and admissions tutors to improve student preparedness for workplace learning.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will employ a mixed-method approach and will be conducted in three phases. The first phase involves a combination of scoping review and interviews with key informants to identify the CSFs known to affect lean sustainability at the MOH hospitals and present them in a validated framework. In the second phase, the framework will be adapted into a checklist to measure the level of lean sustainability in the MOH hospitals. The findings will be used to select the hospital with the lowest and highest level of lean sustainability for an interview in the third phase.
DISCUSSION: The lean sustainability framework will be able to provide more relevant guidance on how to increase the likelihood of lean sustainability and serve as a validated measurement tool for MOH hospitals. In addition, this study will be able to outline the differences in the contributing factors between health organizations that showed a high level of lean sustainability compared to those struggling to sustain.
METHODOLOGY: Eighty-four mandibular first premolars were split into seven groups (and n = 12), Group 1: Dia-Root, Group 2: One-Fil, Group 3: BioRoot RCS, Group 4: AH Plus, Group 5: CeraSeal, Group 6: iRoot SP, Group 7: GP without sealer (control). Two groups were made, one for dentinal tubule penetration and the other for push-out bond strength; the total sample size was one hundred sixty-eight. Root canal treatment was performed using a method called the crown down technique, and for obturation, the single cone technique was used. A confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica, Microsystem Heidel GmbH, Version 2.00 build 0585, Germany) was used to evaluate dentinal tubule penetration, and Universal Testing Machine was utilised to measure the push-out bond strength (Shimadzu, Japan) using a plunger size of 0.4 mm and speed of 1mm/min. Finally, the adhesive pattern of the sealers was analysed by HIROX digital microscope (KH-7700). Statistical analysis was carried out by a one-way Anova test, Dunnet's T3 test, and Chi-square test.
RESULTS: Highest dentinal tubule penetration was noticed with One-Fil (p<0.05), followed by iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus, Dia-Root also, the most negligible value was recorded for BioRoot RCS. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS (p<0.05) demonstrated the greater value of mean push-out bond strength, followed by One-fil, iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus and Dia-Root. Regarding adhesive pattern, most of the samples were classified as type 3 and type 4 which implies greater sealing ability and better adherence to the dentinal wall. However, BioRoot RCS revealed the most type 4 (p<0.05), followed by AH Plus, One-Fil, CeraSeal and Dia-Root.
CONCLUSION: The highest dentinal tubule penetration was shown by One-Fil compared to other groups. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS had greater push-out bond strength and more adhesive pattern than other tested materials.
METHODS: This single-centre cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with CKD stages 3, 4, and 5 (not on dialysis) from the Nephrology Clinic, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre. A total of 84 patients were recruited with an even distribution across all three stages. They underwent fundus photography where images were analysed for vessel calibre (central retinal venular equivalent (CRVE), central retinal arterial equivalent (CRAE), and tortuosity indices. Optical coherence tomography was used to measure macular volume. Blood samples were sent for laboratory measurement of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA). These parameters were analysed in relation to CKD.
RESULTS: The mean age was 58.8 ± 11.7 years, with 52.4% male and 47.6% female patients. Among them, 64.3% were diabetics. Retinal vessel tortuosity (r = -0.220, p-value = 0.044) had a negative correlation with the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). CRVE showed a positive correlation with proteinuria (r = 0.342, p = 0.001) but negative correlation with eGFR (r = -0.236, p = 0.031). Hs-CRP positively correlated with proteinuria (r = 0.313, p = 0.04) and negatively correlated with eGFR (r = -0.370, p = 0.001). Diabetic patients had a higher CRVE compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.02). History of ischaemic heart disease was associated with a smaller macula volume (p = 0.038). Male gender (r2 = 0.066, p = 0.031) and HbA1c had a positive influence (r2 = 0.066, p = 0.047) on retinal vessel tortuosity. There was a positive influence of age (r2 = 0.183, p = 0.012) and hs-CRP (r2 = 0.183, p = 0.045) on CRVE. As for macula volume, it negatively correlated with diabetes (r2 = 0.015, p = 0.040) and positively correlated with smoking (r2 = 0.015, p = 0.012).
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that eGFR value affects retinal vessel tortuosity, CRVE and hs-CRP. These parameters bear potential to be used as non-invasive tools in assessing CKD. However, only macula volume may be associated with CVD risk among the CKD population.
METHODS: A total of 351 participants (Mage = 19.75, SDage = 3.29) were recruited in the study using purposive sampling. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factorial structure of the Family Resilience Scale-Malay (FRS-Malay) and measurement invariance between adolescents and young adults. Then, the scale's reliability was investigated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega coefficients, and composite reliability index. Finally, we examined the discriminant validity of the FRS-Malay by correlating its score with individual resilience score and examined the incremental validity of the scale using hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test if family resilience can explain individual well-being levels beyond and above individual resilience.
RESULTS: The findings of the confirmatory factor analysis suggest that a single-factor model is supported for both age groups. Furthermore, the scale exhibited scalar invariance between adolescents and young adults. The scale also exhibited good reliability, as the value of Cronbach's alpha, McDonald omega coefficients, and composite reliability index were above 0.80. Additionally, the Pearson correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between the FRS-Malay and individual resilience scores, which supports the discriminant validity of the scale. Similarly, the incremental validity of the scale is also supported. Specifically, family resilience had a positive correlation with well-being, even after controlling for individual resilience in the regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The FRS-Malay has demonstrated good reliability and validity. The scale measures the same construct of family resilience across adolescents and young adults, making it suitable for comparisons. Therefore, this unidimensional tool is appropriate for self-reporting their perceived level of family resilience. It is also useful for studying the development and fluctuation of family resilience in the Malaysian context.