METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted from April to May 2020. The outcomes were assessed using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21, Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory, and World Health Organisation Quality of Life-BREF Scale (WHOQOL-BREF) in both English and validated Malay versions.
RESULTS: Mild-to-severe depression was found in 28.2% (n = 149) of the 528 respondents. Respondents with mild-to-severe depression were significantly younger (33.09 ± 10.08 versus 36.79 ± 12.47 years), without partner (71.8% versus 45.6%), lived in the red zone (85.9% versus 71.0%), and had lower household income as defined in the category of B40 (51.7% versus 39.3%) compared to those without depression (all p
OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to examine the effect of mindful gratitude journaling on suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.
METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Ninety-two adult patients with advanced cancer, and an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned to either a mindful gratitude journaling group (N=49) or a routine journaling group (N=43).
RESULTS: After 1 week, there were significant reductions in the overall suffering score from the baseline in both the intervention group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-2.0, 95% CI=-2.7 to -1.4, t=-6.125, p=0.000) and the control group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-1.6, 95% CI=-2.3 to -0.8, t=-4.106, p=0.037). There were also significant improvements in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference=-3.4, 95% CI=-5.3 to -1.5, t=-3.525, p=0.000) and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (mean difference=7.3, 95% CI=1.5 to 13.1, t=2.460, p=0.014) in the intervention group after 7 days, but not in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that 7 days of mindful gratitude journaling could positively affect the state of suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN1261800172191) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the psychological processes involved in the experiencing of suffering at the end phase of life.
METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 palliative care inpatients from an academic medical centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The transcripts were thematically analysed with NVIVO9.
RESULTS: 5 themes of psychological processes of suffering were generated: (1) perceptions, (2) cognitive appraisals, (3) hope and the struggles with acceptance, (4) emotions and (5) clinging. A model of suffering formation was constructed.
CONCLUSION: The findings may inform the development of mechanism-based interventions in the palliation of suffering.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the effect of 20-minute mindful breathing on the rapid reduction of dyspnea at rest in patients with lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma.
METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial of standard care plus 20-minute mindful breathing vs. standard care alone for patients with moderate to severe dyspnea due to lung disease, named previously, at the respiratory unit of University Malaya Medical Centre in Malaysia, from August 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.
RESULTS: Sixty-three participants were randomly assigned to standard care plus a 20-minute mindful breathing session (n = 32) or standard care alone (n = 31), with no difference in their demographic and clinical characteristics. There was statistically significant reduction in dyspnea in the mindful breathing group compared with the control group at minute 5 (U = 233.5, n1 = 32, n2 = 31, mean rank1 = 23.28, mean rank2 = 37.72, z = -3.574, P
METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Seventy-three patients with advanced cancer with an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned into either the MBST group (n=34) or the control group (n=39).
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall suffering score in the MBST group compared with the control group (U=432.5, median1=-2.0, median2=-1.0, z=-2.645, p=0.008). There was also significant improvement in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (U=483.5, median1=-4.0, median2=-3.0, z=-1.994, p=0.046), and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (U=252.0, median1=+14.5, median2=+5.0, z=-4.549, p=0.000) in the MBST group compared with the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provided evidence that the practice of MBST during patient care could promote positive psychosocial outcomes.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients on warfarin for NVAF who attended the anticoagulant clinic of a tertiary cardiology referral center in Sarawak from 1st June 2018 to 31st May 2019. Patients' TTR was calculated by using Rosendaal technique, while their HRQoL and treatment satisfaction were assessed by using Short Form 12 Health Survey version 2 (SF12v2) and Duke Anticoagulant Satisfaction Scale (DASS), respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included, with mean TTR score of 47.0 ± 17.3%. The physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) score of SF-12v2 were 47.0 ± 9.0 and 53.5 ± 9.6, respectively. The total score for DASS was 55.2 ± 21.3, while the score for limitations (L), hassles and burdens (H&B) and positive psychological impacts (PPI) were 18.0 ± 10.0, 15.6 ± 9.1 and 21.6 ± 5.9, respectively. Seventy-three (24.3%) patients had good TTR (≥ 60%), with mean of 70.2 ± 8.7%; while 227 (75.5%) patients with poor TTR had significantly lower mean of 39.5 ± 11.9% (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in the score of PCS (p = 0.150), MCS (p = 0.919) and each domain of SF-12v2 (p = 0.184-0.684) between good and poor TTR, except for social functioning (p = 0.019). The total DASS score was also not significantly different between group (p = 0.779). Similar non-significant difference was also reported in all the DASS sub dimensions (p = 0.502-0.699).
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the patients on long-term warfarin for NVAF in the current study have poor TTR. Their HRQoL and treatment satisfaction are independent of their TTR. Achieving a good TTR do not compromise the HRQoL and treatment satisfaction. Therefore, appropriate measures should be taken to optimise INR control, failing which direct oral anticoagulant therapy should be considered.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) on long-term anticoagulant therapy attending the cardiology clinic and anticoagulation clinic of the University Malaya Medical Centre from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. Patient QOL was assessed by using the Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF12), while treatment satisfaction was assessed by using the Perception of Anticoagulation Treatment Questionnaire 2 (PACT-Q2).
Results: A total of 208 patients were recruited; 52.4% received warfarin and 47.6% received DOAC. There was no significant difference in QOL between warfarin and DOAC based on SF12 (physical QOL, P=0.083; mental QOL, P=0.665). Nevertheless, patients in the DOAC group were significantly more satisfied with their treatment compared to the warfarin group based on PACT-Q2 (P=0.004). The hospitalisation rate was significantly higher in the warfarin group than the DOAC group (15.6% versus 3.0%, P=0.002). Clinically relevant minor bleeds and severe bleeding events were non-significantly higher in the warfarin group than the DOAC group (66.7% versus 40.0%, P=0.069).
Conclusion: Compared to warfarin, treatment of NVAF and VTE with DOAC showed comparable QOL, higher treatment satisfaction, lesser hospitalization, and a non-significant trend toward fewer bleeding episodes.
METHODS: A nationwide, cross-sectional, and population-based study was conducted online in Malaysia from 28th April 2023 to 4th June 2023. Individuals aged 18 years and above were enrolled through the snowball sampling method. Data were analyzed by using the Chi-Square test, independent t-test, and binary logistic regression.
RESULTS: One thousand four hundred fifty-three responses were included in the analysis. Of these respondents, 89.3% were willing, 4.1% were reluctant, and 6.6% remained hesitant to perform COVID-19 self-testing, The common reasons given by those willing to perform COVID-19 self-testing included being able to self-isolate (99.0%) and seek treatment (96.3%) earlier if tested positive. The common reasons against COVID-19 self-testing included the belief that COVID-19 is equivalent to the common flu (91.7%) and having received the COVID-19 vaccine (78.3%). The isolation policy for COVID-19 was the most significant consideration for those who were still hesitant (85.4%). Women [adjusted odds ratios (OR): 2.1, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 1.44-3.00, p < 0.001], individuals with tertiary education (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.32-3.26, p = 0.002), those vaccinated against COVID-19 (OR: 8.1, 95% CI: 2.63-24.82, p < 0.001), and individuals with prior experience of COVID-19 self-testing (OR: 4.2, 95% CI: 2.84-6.12, p < 0.001) showed a significantly higher willingness to engage in COVID-19 self-testing.
CONCLUSION: The public exhibited a high willingness to perform COVID-19 self-testing during the transition to the endemic phase in Malaysia. Future strategies to promote COVID-19 self-testing uptake in Malaysia should focus on vulnerable groups, address the common concerns among those hesitant and reluctant, and highlight the advantages of COVID-19 self-testing.