METHODS: The electronic databases Cochrane Central Library, PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect were searched based on specific MeSH keywords. The Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical trials on BOPT printed in English up to July 2022 were selected. Screening, selection, and data extraction were done. The studies were assessed for risk of bias, and descriptive and meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review and only three RCTs were involved in the meta-analysis. Two RCTs were assessed as low risk while one has some concerns. were grouped as good, fair, and poor based on NOS. Three of the prospective studies were considered to be of good quality and one study was fair. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the effect of BOPT and chamfer preparation on periodontal health status and success rate (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limitation of this review, the BOPT is comparable to chamfer preparation and it resulted in an acceptable effect to maintain periodontal health with a high success rate. However, more evidence is required to support these findings.
PURPOSE: To explore the experiences of hope of palliative care patients.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted at University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Adult palliative care in-patients were recruited and interviewed with semi structured questions on hope. Transcripts from the interviews were thematically analyzed with qualitative data management software NVIVO.
FINDINGS: 20 palliative care patients participated in the study. The themes generated from thematic analysis were (1) The notions of hope, (2) The sources and barriers of hope and (3) The contents of hope.
CONCLUSION: Hope is an ever-present source of energy that gives people strength to carry on even in the most adverse situations. Understanding hope from the palliative care perspective may allow healthcare providers to develop strategies to better foster hope in the terminally ill.
METHODS: We obtained the validity and reliability evidence for the SAS-M-SF using a group of 307 pre-university students in Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia with a mean age of 18.4±0.2 years (70.4% female and 29.6% male). A questionnaire containing the Malay version of Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS-M), the Malay version of the short form Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS-M-SF), and the Malay version of the Internet Addiction Test (IAT-M) was administered on the adolescents.
RESULTS: The SAS-M-SF displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.80). Using principle component analysis, we identified a 4-factor SAS-M-SF model. A significant correlation between the SAS-M-SF and the IAT-M was found, lending support for concurrent validity. The prevalence of smartphone addiction was 54.5% based on cut-off score of ≥36 with a sensitivity of 70.2% and a specificity of 72.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: The 10-item SAS-M-SF is a valid and reliable screening tool for smartphone addiction among adolescents. The scale can help clinicians or educators design appropriate intervention and prevention programs targeting smartphone addiction in adolescents at clinical or school settings.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed among all the medical students (Year 1-5). Students were assessed on their internet activities using the internet addiction questionnaires (IAT). A Multiple Logistic Regression was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: The study was conducted among 426 students. The study population consisted of 156 males (36.6%) and 270 females (63.4%). The mean age was 21.6 ±1.5 years. Ethnicity distribution among the students was: Malays (55.6%), Chinese (34.7%), Indians (7.3%) and others (2.3%). According to the IAT, 36.9% of the study sample was addicted to the internet. Using the multivariate logistic regression analysis, we have found that the use of internet access for entertainment purposes (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-12.00), male students (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.01-3.21) and increasing frequency of internet usage were associated with internet addiction (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.09- 1.67).
CONCLUSION: Internet addiction is a relatively frequent phenomenon among medical students. The predictors of internet addiction were male students using it for surfing and entertainment purposes.
METHOD: This online-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 1280 healthcare providers aged ≥18 years from 30 primary care clinics in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale was used to assess the level of fear, and the results were analysed using multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: The mean age of the respondents was 36 years, and the mean working experience was 11 years. The majority of the respondents were women (82.4%) and Malays (82.3%). The factors that were significantly correlated with higher levels of fear were underlying chronic disease (ß=1.12, P=0.002, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.08, 3.15), concern about mortality from COVID-19 (ß=3.3, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.19, 7.22), higher risk of exposure (ß=0.8, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.14, 5.91), concern for self at work (ß=2.8, P=0.002, 95% CI=0.08, 3.10) and work as a nurse (ß=3.6, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.30, 7.52), medical laboratory worker (ß=3.0, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.12, 4.27) and healthcare assistant (ß=3.9, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.17, 5.73). The level of fear was inversely correlated with a higher work-related stress management score (ß=-0.9, P<0.001, 95% CI=-0.14, -5.07) and a higher sleep quality score (ß=-1.8, P<0.001, 95% CI=-0.28, -10.41).
CONCLUSION: Family physicians should be vigilant and identify healthcare providers at risk of developing COVID-19-related fear to initiate early mental health intervention.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
RESULTS: We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8-41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3-45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2-49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6-88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0-82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8-19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30-1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02-1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49-1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16-1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28-1.97).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.
METHODS: A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 1280 healthcare providers aged 18 years and older from 30 primary care clinics in Selangor, Malaysia. In this study, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory was used to assess burnout. The results were analyzed using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: The prevalence of personal burnout was 41.7%, followed by work-related burnout (32.2%) and client-related burnout (14.5%). The determinants for personal burnout in this study were younger age, being a doctor, higher COVID-19 exposure risk, do not know where to seek help, inability to handle stress, poorer sleep quality score, higher total COVID-19 fear score, higher total stress score, and lower total BRS score. The determinants of work-related burnout were younger age, being a doctor, longer years of working, higher COVID-19 exposure risk, do not know where to seek help, lower altruistic score, poorer sleep quality score, higher total stress score, and lower total brief resilience score (BRS) score. The determinants of client-related burnout were doctor, single/divorced, more than one attachment site, and higher satisfaction toward the infection control, inability to handle stress, higher total depression score, and lower total BRS score.
CONCLUSION: Every fourth out of ten suffered from personal burnout, one-third from work-related burnout, and one-seventh from client-related burnout among healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare systems must take care of healthcare workers' physical and emotional depletion, reducing the risk of burnout.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and ScienceDirect for observational studies in Asia from inception to August 2017. We selected cross sectional studies reporting the prevalence and risk factors for GDM. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of GDM and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Eighty-four studies with STROBE score ≥ 14 were included in our analysis. The pooled prevalence of GDM in Asia was 11.5% (95% CI 10.9-12.1). There was considerable heterogeneity (I2 > 95%) in the prevalence of GDM in Asia, which is likely due to differences in diagnostic criteria, screening methods and study setting. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk factors of GDM include history of previous GDM (OR 8.42, 95% CI 5.35-13.23); macrosomia (OR 4.41, 95% CI 3.09-6.31); and congenital anomalies (OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.52-11.88). Other risk factors include a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.81-3.80); pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.19-4.68); family history of diabetes (OR 2.77, 2.22-3.47); history of stillbirth (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.68-3.40); polycystic ovary syndrome (OR 2.33, 95% CI1.72-3.17); history of abortion (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.54-3.29); age ≥ 25 (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.96-2.41); multiparity ≥2 (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.52); and history of preterm delivery (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21-3.07).
CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of GDM among the Asian population. Asian women with common risk factors especially among those with history of previous GDM, congenital anomalies or macrosomia should receive additional attention from physician as high-risk cases for GDM in pregnancy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (2017: CRD42017070104 ).