METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.
RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.
CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.
METHODS: In this longitudinal study, we randomly selected community members aged between 18 and 70 years who resided in Segamat district of Johor state, Malaysia. Over 21 days, we conducted three home visits to each participant. During each visit, participants completed a questionnaire consisting of Likert scale, multiple choice, and free text questions and we collected quantitative and qualitative data. These inquiries assessed the participants' perception of heat as health threat, whether or not they took heat preventive measures, and the specific protective measures they routinely employed. Descriptive data analyses were conducted and patterns of protective measures were investigated.
FINDINGS: Between March 29 and July 31, 2023, 120 participants (72 women and 48 men) completed 360 questionnaires over three home visits. Initially, 58% participants recognised heat hazards to daily activities, decreasing to 42% and 35% by visits 2 and 3. Participants took preventive measures throughout the day, which was consistently high between 1200 h and 1400 h, with 77% of participants taking preventive measures on visit 1, 82% on visit 2, and 82% on visit 3. Use of preventive measures was also high between 1400 h and 1730 h, with 77% using preventive measure on visit 1, 81% on visit 2, and 79% on visit 3. The most common protective measures were fans (used by 68-88% of participants), drinking more water (70-78% of participants), and resting (44-72% of participants). The least common were relocating to cooler places, removing clothes, and using wet towels (0-2·5%). Despite high temperatures, perceptions of heat risks decreased over time. Participants took basic protections, especially at midday, but improved literacy and affordable cooling options are needed to protect vulnerable rural populations.
INTERPRETATION: Our findings underline the need to improve heat literacy and adaptation as only half of the population assessed perceived heat as a potential health hazard and practised limited heat protective measures. Addressing climate change and health necessitates fundamental behavioural changes on the part of individuals and communities, to protect them against the adverse effects of heat.
FUNDING: Monash University Malaysia and Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University.
METHODS: This study uses a mixed methods design. It focuses primarily on qualitative data to understand processes and strategies and to identify specific areas that can be improved through stakeholder engagement in the screening program. Quantitative data play a dual role in supporting the selection of participants for the qualitative study based on program monitoring data and assessing inequalities in screening and program implementation in healthcare facilities in Malaysia. Meanwhile, literature review identifies existing strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening. Additionally, the knowledge-to-action framework is integrated to ensure that the research findings lead to practical improvements to the colorectal cancer screening program.
DISCUSSION: Through this complex mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, this study will explore the complex interplay of population- and systems-level factors that influence screening rates. It involves identifying barriers to effective colorectal cancer screening in Malaysia, comparing current strategies with international best practices, and providing evidence-based recommendations to improve the local screening program.
METHODS: DNA was extracted from eighty-six patients. The patients were genotyped by AS-PCR. Computational modeling of the HLA-B*15:02 followed by docking studies were performed to screen 26 AEDs that may induce ADR among HLA-B*15:02 carriers.
RESULTS: Odd ratio for CBZ induced SJS/TEN and HLA-B*15:02 was 609.0 (95% CI: 23-15873; p=0.0002). Molecular modeling studies showed that acetazolamide, ethosuxiamide, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone and sodium-valproate may induce ADR in HLA-B*15:02 carriers alike CBZ. Conclusion. We confirmed HLA-B*15:02 as a predictor of SJS/TEN and recommend pre-screening. Computational prediction of DIHR is useful in personalized medicine.