METHODS: A quasi experimental interventional study involving 166 non-smokers adolescents, aged 13 to 14 years old were carried out in two schools located in two different suburbs. Both schools had equal number of participants. One school was given the smoking prevention module for intervention while the control school only received the module after the study had been completed. The knowledge on smoking and its harmful effects and smoking refusal skill score were assessed using a set of validated Malay questionnaires at baseline, two weeks and eight weeks after the intervention. Repeated measure ANCOVA was used to analyse the mean score difference of both groups at baseline and after intervention.
RESULT: Baseline analysis shows no significant difference in knowledge score between the study groups (p = 0.713) while post intervention, it shows significant inclination of knowledge score in intervention group and the difference was significant after controlling the gender [F(df) = 15.96(1.5), p <0.001]. The mean baseline for refusal skills score in the control and intervention groups were 30.89(6.164) and 28.02(6.241) respectively (p= 0.003). Post intervention, there is a significant difference in the crude mean and the estimated marginal means for smoking refusal skills score between the two groups after controlling for sex [F(df) = 5.66(1.8), p = 0.005].
CONCLUSION: This smoking prevention module increased the level of knowledge on smoking and its harmful effects and smoking refusal skill among the secondary school students. Thus, it is advocated to be used as one of the standard modules to improve the current method of teaching in delivering knowledge related to harmful effects of smoking and smoking refusal skill to the adolescents in Malaysia.
.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Google Scholars, World Health Organization Trials Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Registry of India, and AYUSH Research Portal for all appropriate trials. Randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of Ashwagandha extract versus placebo on sleep in human participants 18 years old and above were considered. Two authors independently read all trials and independently extracted all relevant data. The primary outcomes were sleep quantity and sleep quality. The secondary outcomes were mental alertness on rising, anxiety level, and quality of life.
RESULTS: A total of five randomized controlled trials containing 400 participants were analyzed. Ashwagandha extract exhibited a small but significant effect on overall sleep (Standardized Mean Difference -0.59; 95% Confidence Interval -0.75 to -0.42; I2 = 62%). The effects on sleep were more prominent in the subgroup of adults diagnosed with insomnia, treatment dosage ≥600 mg/day, and treatment duration ≥8 weeks. Ashwagandha extract was also found to improve mental alertness on rising and anxiety level, but no significant effect on quality of life. No serious side effects were reported.
CONCLUSION: Ashwagandha extract appears to has a beneficial effect in improving sleep in adults. However, data on the serious adverse effects of Ashwagandha extract are limited, and more safety data would be needed to assess whether it would be safe for long-term use.
DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study consisting of a single group before-and-after study design.
SETTING: A public emergency hospital in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
PARTICIPANTS: 660 (preintervention) and then 498 (postintervention) handwritten physician orders, medication administration records (MRAs) and pharmacy dispensing sheets of 482 and 388 patients, respectively, from emergency wards, inpatient settings and the pharmacy department were reviewed.
INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a series of interactive lectures delivered by an experienced clinical pharmacist to all hospital staff members and dissemination of educational tools (flash cards, printed list of HRAs, awareness posters) designed in line with the recommendations of the Institute for Safe Medical Practices and the US Food and Drug Administration. The duration of intervention was from April to May 2011.
MAIN OUTCOME: Reduction in the incidence of HRAs use from the preintervention to postintervention study period.
FINDINGS: The five most common abbreviations recorded prior to the interventions were 'IJ for injection' (28.6%), 'SC for subcutaneous' (17.4%), drug name and dose running together (9.7%), 'OD for once daily' (5.8%) and 'D/C for discharge' (4.3%). The incidence of the use of HRAs was highest in discharge prescriptions and dispensing records (72.7%) followed by prescriptions from in-patient wards (47.3%). After the intervention, the overall incidence of HRA was significantly reduced by 52% (ie, 53.6% vs 25.5%; p=0.001). In addition, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of HRAs across all three settings: the pharmacy department (72.7% vs 39.3%), inpatient settings (47.3% vs 23.3%) and emergency wards (40.9% vs 10.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist-led educational interventions can significantly reduce the use of HRAs by healthcare providers. Future research should investigate the long-term effectiveness of such educational interventions through a randomised controlled trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 134 postgraduate trainees from the departments of general surgery (Surgical), orthopaedic surgery (Ortho), otorhinolaryngology (ENT), obstetrics and gynaecology (OBGYN), as well as anaesthesiology and intensive care (Anaesth) were recruited. A validated questionnaire was used to assess awareness and knowledge. All participants attended a medical-education session and completed the questionnaire as preassessment and postassessment. Data were analysed, and comparisons between disciplines were conducted.
RESULTS: The trainees' awareness of LAST was overall poor at preassessment which improved almost 6-folds at postassessment. Surprisingly, only 20 (45.5%) participants from the anaesthesiology group had awareness of LAST at preassessment, and none of the participants were from surgical, orthopaedic, and obstetrics and gynaecology departments. Preassessment scores were significantly higher in the anaesth group as compared to all other groups; with a difference in the average score for Anaesth vs Surgical of 3.46 (95%, CI:2.17, 4.74), Anaesth vs Ortho of 3.64 (95%, CI:2.64, 4.64), Anaesth vs ENT of 3.43 (95%, CI:2.20, 4.67), and Anaesth vs OBGYN of 6.93 (95%, CI:5.64, 8.21). However, there was no significant difference of awareness scores between all participants at postassessment scores.
CONCLUSION: The overall level of awareness was poor. However, the implementation of an education session significantly improved the knowledge and awareness across all disciplines.
METHODS: This single-centre retrospective observational study evaluated 2479 intensive care unit (ICU) cases from January 2016 to December 2018. A total of 76 identified candidemia cases and 76 matched control cases were analyzed. The patients' demographic characteristics and illness severity were analyzed, and possible risk factors for candidemia were investigated.
RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified renal replacement therapy (RRT) (odds ratio [OR]: 52.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.82-356.92; P < 0.0001), multifocal Candida colonization (OR: 23.55; 95% CI: 4.23-131.05; P < 0.0001), parenteral nutrition (PN) (OR: 63.67; 95% CI: 4.56-889.77; P = 0.002), and acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR: 7.67; 95% CI: 1.24-47.30; P = 0.028) as independent risk factors. A new prediction score with a cut-off value of 5.0 (80.3% sensitivity and 77.3% specificity) was formulated from the logit model equation.
CONCLUSIONS: Renal replacement therapy, AKI, PN, and multifocal Candida colonization were the independent risk factors for the new candidemia prediction score with high discriminatory performance and predictive accuracy.