OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of visual impairment and amblyopia in Malaysian preschool children.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional, population-based study was conducted on children aged four to six years from 51 participating kindergartens in the district of Segamat, Johor, Malaysia from 20 March 2016 to 6 April 2016. All subjects had initial eye screening consisting of LogMar visual acuity, orthoptics examination and Spot vision screener assessment. Subjects who failed the initial eye screening were invited for a formal eye assessment consisting of cycloplegic refraction and a comprehensive ocular examination. Definitions of visual impairment and amblyopia were based on the Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 1287 children were recruited. Mean subject age was 5.03 (SD:0.77) and males represented 52.3% of subjects. Subjects by ethnicity were Malay (54.8%), Chinese (27.7%), Indian (15.6%) and Orang Asli (1.9%). Formal eye assessment was required for 221 subjects and 88.8% required ophthalmic intervention. Refractive error, representing 95.4% of diagnosed ocular disorders, comprised of astigmatism (84%), myopia (9%) and hypermetropia (6.9%). With-the-rule astigmatism was present in 93.4% of the subjects with astigmatism. Visual impairment was present in 12.5% of our subjects, with 61% having bilateral visual impairment. Of the subjects with visual impairment, 59.1% had moderate visual impairment. The prevalence of amblyopia was 7.53%, and 66% of the amblyopic subjects had bilateral amblyopia.
CONCLUSION: Our study highlights an urgent need for initiation of preschool vision screening in Malaysia.
STUDY DESIGN: We assessed data from 6414 children aged 6-18 years, collected by the South East Asia Community Observatory. Child underweight, overweight, and obesity were expressed according to 3 internationally used BMI references: World Health Organization 2007, International Obesity Task Force 2012, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000. We assessed agreement in classification of anthropometric status among the references using Cohen's kappa statistic and estimated underweight, overweight, and obesity prevalence according to each reference using mixed effects Poisson regression.
RESULTS: There was poor to moderate agreement between references when classifying underweight, but generally good agreement when classifying overweight and obesity. Underweight, overweight, and obesity prevalence estimates generated using the 3 references were notably inconsistent. Overweight and obesity prevalence estimates were higher using the World Health Organization reference vs the other 2, and underweight prevalence was up to 8.5% higher and obesity prevalence was about 4% lower when using the International Obesity Task Force reference.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of reference to express BMI may influence conclusions about child anthropometric status and malnutrition prevalence. This has implications regarding strategies for clinical management and public health interventions.
METHODS: PubMed case reports data from 2011 to 2016 were extracted for the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. The gender of the patients were identified and a text analysis of the Medical Subject Headings conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 2,742 case reports were downloaded and 2,582 (95.6%) reports contributed to the final analysis. A pooled analysis showed a statistically significant gender bias against female case reports (0.45; 95%CI: 0.43-0.47). The Annals of Internal Medicine was the only journal with a point estimate (non significant) in the direction of a bias against male patients. The text analysis identified no substantive difference in the focus of the case reports and no obvious explanation for the bias.
CONCLUSION: Gender bias, previously identified in clinical research and in clinical authorship, extends into the patients presented in clinical case reports. Whether it is driven by authors or editors is not clear, but it likely contributes to and supports an overall male bias of clinical medicine.
METHOD: We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Malaysia (N = 44) and Thailand (N = 50), alongside policy document review in both countries. Data were analysed thematically. Results informed development of Systems Thinking diagrams hypothesizing potential intervention points to improve cultural competency, namely via addressing language barriers.
RESULTS: Language ability was a core tenet of cultural competency as described by participants in both countries. Malay was perceived to be an easy language that migrants could learn quickly, with perceived proficiency differing by source country and length of stay in Malaysia. Language barriers were a source of frustration for both migrants and health workers, which compounded communication of complex conditions including mental health as well as obtaining informed consent from migrant patients. Health workers in Malaysia used strategies including google translate and hand gestures to communicate, while migrant patients were encouraged to bring friends to act as informal interpreters during consultations. Current health services are not migrant friendly, which deters use. Concerns around overuse of services by non-citizens among the domestic population may partly explain the lack of policy support for cultural competency in Malaysia. Service provision for migrants in Thailand was more culturally sensitive as formal interpreters, known as Migrant Health Workers (MHW), could be hired in public facilities, as well as Migrant Health Volunteers (MHV) who provide basic health education in communities.
CONCLUSION: Perceptions of overuse by migrants in a health system acts as a barrier against system or institutional level improvements for cultural competency, in an already stretched health system. At the micro-level, language interventions with migrant workers appear to be the most feasible leverage point but raises the question of who should bear responsibility for cost and provision-employers, the government, or migrants themselves.
METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews with 22 people (health professionals, cancer survivors, community volunteers and member from a non-governmental organization) and four focus group discussions (n = 22 participants) with women from a local community were conducted. All participants were purposively sampled and female residents registered with the South East Asia Community Observatory aged ≥40 years were eligible to participate in the focus group discussions. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis illuminated barriers, challenges and opportunities across six domains: (i) personal experiences and barriers to help-seeking as well as financial and travel access barriers; (ii) primary care challenges (related to delivering clinical breast examination and teaching breast-self-examination); (iii) secondary care challenges (related to mammogram services); (iv) disconnection between secondary and primary care breast cancer screening pathways; and (v) opportunities to improve breast cancer early detection relating to community civil service society activities (i.e. awareness raising, support groups, addressing stigma/embarrassment and encouraging husbands to support women) and vi) links between public healthcare personnel and community (i.e. improving breast self-examination education, clinical breast examination provision and subsidised mammograms).
CONCLUSION: The results point to a variety of reasons for low uptake and, therefore, to the complex nature of improving breast cancer screening and early detection. There is a need to adopt a systems approach to address this complexity and to take account of the socio-cultural context of communities in order, in turn, to strengthen cancer control policy and practices in Malaysia.