METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.
METHODS: S100A4 protein expression was examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using commercially available tissue microarray containing malignant and normal breast tissue cores from 216 patients.
RESULTS: S100A4 was absent in normal breast tissues while positive in 45.1% of infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) node negative and 48.8% of infiltrating lobular carcinoma node negative. In paired samples, S100A4 protein was expressed in 13.5% of IDC node positive cases and 35.1% of matched lymph node metastasis.
CONCLUSION: S100A4 protein expression appears widely expressed in early and advanced breast cancer stages compared with normal breast. Our study suggests S100A4 may play a role in breast cancer progression and may prove to be an independent marker of breast cancer which appears to be down regulated in more advanced stages of breast cancer.
METHODS: A cross sectional survey was conducted among staff from a tertiary education centre. Subjects were contacted to ascertain their medical history. A total of 320 subjects were interviewed and 195 subjects were eligible and subsequently recruited on a suitable date for taking blood and administration of the questionnaires. The subjects completed questionnaires pertaining to demographic details and coping styles. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength of association between lipid profile and coping styles.
RESULTS: Majority of the subjects were non-academic staff (60.0%), female (67.2%), Malay (91.8%), married (52.3%) and educated until Diploma level (34.9%). Academic staff scored significantly higher mean scores in task-oriented coping styles (Mean = 64.12). Non-academic staff scored significantly higher mean scores in emotion (Mean = 48.05) and avoidance-oriented coping styles (Mean = 57.61). Malay subjects had significantly higher mean scores in emotion (Mean = 47.14) and avoidance-oriented coping styles (Mean = 55.23). Non-malay subjects (Mean = 66.00) attained significantly higher mean scores in task-oriented coping styles. Single/divorced/widowed individuals scored significantly higher mean scores in emotion (Mean = 48.13) and avoidance-oriented coping styles (Mean = 56.86). There was a significant negative correlation between TC (r = -0.162) and LDL (r = -0.168) with avoidance-oriented coping styles (p = 0.023, p = 0.019 respectively).
CONCLUSION: Avoidance-oriented coping style was more likely to engender favourable lipid profile. Hence, assessment of coping styles would certainly assist health care practitioners in predicting subjects who would be at a greater risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.