METHODS: This was a primary school-based cross-sectional study using multistage cluster sampling, conducted at Bau district in Sarawak, Malaysia in 40 primary schools. A questionnaire was used to collect information of usage pattern in insufficient lighting, timing and position. The physical and behavioural complaints were traced. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 22. A p-value < 0.05 with 95% CI was considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS: About 52.8% of the 569 students used digital devices in a bright room, 69.8% in the day time and 54.4% in sitting position. The physical complaints were headache (32.9%), neck, shoulder and back pain (32.9%) followed by by eye strain (31.8%). Regarding behavioural problems, 25.7% of the students had loss of interest in study and outdoor activities (20.7%), skipped meals (19.0%) and arguments/disagreements with parents (17.9%). After logistic regression analysis, the lying position (OR=1.71, 95% CI: 1.096, 2.688) and darkroom lighting (OR=2.323 95% CI: 1.138, 4.744) appeared to be potential predictors of the complaint.
CONCLUSION: One-quarter of the students studied experienced physical complaints, and one-fifth had behavioural problems associated with the use of electronic devices. Lying position and darkroom lighting are the potential predictors of complaints. Therefore, we suggest that the children should use electronic devices in the sitting position with adequate room lighting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the LC scores of three previous years with those of the SBCE and studied the feedback of the three stakeholders: students, examiners, and simulated patients (SPs), regarding their experience with SBCE and the suitability of SBCE as an alternative for LC in future examinations.
RESULTS: The SBCE scores were higher than those of the LC. Most of the examiners and students were not in favour of SBCE replacing LC, as such. The SPs were more positive about the proposition. The comments of the three stakeholders brought out the plus and minus points of LC and SBCE, which prompted our proposals to make SBCE more practical for future examinations.
CONCLUSION: Having analysed the feedback of the stakeholders, and the positive and negative aspects of LC and SBCE, it was evident that SBCE needed improvements. We have proposed eight modifications to SBCE to make it a viable alternative for LC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among the healthcare workers in the paediatric department at three public specialist hospitals in Negeri Sembilan between 15 and 21 April 2022. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire.
RESULTS: Out of the 504 eligible healthcare workers, 493 participated in this study (response rate 97.8%). The overall prevalence of COVID-19 (11 March 2020-15 April 2022) among healthcare workers was 50.9%. The majority (80.1%) were infected during the Omicron wave two months before the survey. Household contacts accounted for 35.9% of infection sources. The proportion of non-doctors in the COVID-19-infected group was significantly higher compared to the non-infected group (74.1% vs 64.0%, p=0.016). The COVID-19-infected group had a higher proportion of schoolgoing children (44.6% vs 30.6%, p=0.001) and children who attended pre-school/sent to the babysitter (49.0% vs 24.4%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between infection rates among the healthcare workers working in the tertiary hospital and the district hospitals. There were also no significant differences in the proportion of COVID-19- infected doctors and nurses when analysed by seniority.
CONCLUSION: Our study provided an estimate on the prevalence of COVID-19 among paediatric healthcare workers in Negeri Sembilan and the factors associated with infection, which captures the extent and magnitude of this pandemic on the state's paediatric department. Most infections resulted from household contact, with a higher proportion of infected healthcare workers having young children.
METHODS: The GI-COVID-19 is a prospective, multicenter, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were recruited at hospital admission and asked for GI symptoms at admission and after 1 month, using the validated Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: The study included 2036 hospitalized patients. A total of 871 patients (575 COVID+ and 296 COVID-) were included for the primary analysis. GI symptoms occurred more frequently in patients with COVID-19 (59.7%; 343/575 patients) than in the control group (43.2%; 128/296 patients) (P < 0.001). Patients with COVID-19 complained of higher presence or intensity of nausea, diarrhea, loose stools, and urgency as compared with controls. At a 1-month follow-up, a reduction in the presence or intensity of GI symptoms was found in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms at hospital admission. Nausea remained increased over controls. Factors significantly associated with nausea persistence in COVID-19 were female sex, high body mass index, the presence of dyspnea, and increased C-reactive protein levels.
DISCUSSION: The prevalence of GI symptoms in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is higher than previously reported. Systemic and respiratory symptoms are often associated with GI complaints. Nausea may persist after the resolution of COVID-19 infection.