METHODS: This paper covers detailed explanation on the various developmental and validation process stages of the CAB zoonotic disease questionnaire development. The development phase comprised thorough literature search, focus group discussion, expert panel assessment and review. The validation process included pre-test and pilot testing, data analysis of results, analysis of internal consistency and the development of the final version of the questionnaire. Participants selected represented main ethnicities, gender, levels of education and population type (urban/rural) in the Klang Valley area.
RESULTS: The items in the questionnaire has undergone various changes in structurally and linguistically. The final refined CAB questionnaire consists of 14 items cognitive (no items removed at pilot phase), nine items affective (one item removed at pilot phase) and five items behaviour (no items removed from pre-test phase), respectively. Reliability analysis revealed Cronbach's alpha values were 0.700 (cognitive) and 0.606 (affective) which indicated good internal consistency after item reduction.
CONCLUSIONS: The developed questionnaire has proved its feasibility in assessing the Malaysian general population cognitive, affective and behavior regarding the household pets' zoonotic diseases.
METHODS: The source questionnaire in English was translated into Bahasa Melayu. Linguistic validation guidelines by the MAPI Research Institute were followed. The already validated Bahasa Melayu PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales was used for comparison. Sociodemographic data were collected during the interview. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine children aged 8 to 18 with CKD stages 4 and 5, with or without dialysis, and their caregivers were recruited. Mean age was 12.62 ± 2.77 (SD). Evaluation of the PedsQL 3.0 ESRD Module Bahasa Melayu version demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.82). There was good agreement between child self-report and parent proxy report in all domains; average intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.78, 95% CI (0.71, 0.84). Scores obtained from Generic 4.0 scales correlated with the disease-specific ESRD 3.0 scale, Spearman's rho = 0.32, p = 0.007. The Kruskal-Wallis H test indicated that there were no significant differences between stages of CKD and their respective mean HRQoL score, χ2(2) = 2.88, p = 0.236.
CONCLUSIONS: The PedsQL 3.0 ESRD Module Bahasa Melayu version is a reliable and feasible tool for cross-cultural adaptation. A longer prospective study may help better illustrate the quality of life in this group of children.
METHODS: This study was designed in the form of cross-sectional analysis, in which, cancer survivors were recruited from the Sarawak General Hospital, the largest tertiary and referral public hospital in Sarawak. To capture the financial toxicity of the cancer survivors, the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) instrument in its validated form was adopted. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to determine the relationship between financial toxicity (FT) and its predictors.
RESULTS: The median age of the 461 cancer survivors was 56 while the median score of COST was 22.0. Besides, finding from multivariable logistic regression revealed that low income households (OR: 6.893, 95% CI, 3.109-15.281) were susceptible to higher risk of financial toxicity, while elderly survivors above 50 years old reported a lower risk in financial toxicity. Also, survivors with secondary schooling (OR:0.240; 95%CI, 0.110-0.519) and above [College or university (OR: 0.242; 95% CI, 0.090-0.646)] suffer a lower risk of FT.
CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity was found to be associated with survivors age, household income and educational level. In the context of cancer treatment within public health facility, younger survivors, households from B40 group and individual with educational attainment below the first level schooling in the Malaysian system of education are prone to greater financial toxicity. Therefore, it is crucial for healthcare policymakers and clinicians to deliberate the plausible risk of financial toxicity borne by the patient amidst the treatment process.