METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, matched pair, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Randomisation is performed using a computer-generated table with a 1:1 allocation comparing the SIMSP and the POHP involving 28 preschools in the Kampar district, Perak, Malaysia. The intervention consists of preschool visits by a group of dental therapists, in-class oral health lessons and daily toothbrushing conducted by class teacher, child home toothbrushing supervised by parents, and infographic oral health messages to parents. The control consists of the existing POHP that involves preschool visits by a group of dental therapists only. The trial lasts for 6 months. Primary outcome variable is the mean plaque score change after 6 months. To determine the feasibility of the SIMSP, a process evaluation will be conducted using the perspectives of dental therapists, teachers, and parents on the appropriateness, effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers to the SIMSP implementation as well as an audit trail to assess the trial intervention.
DISCUSSION: Cluster randomisation may lead to a random effect and cluster selection bias. These factors will be accounted for when analysing the data and interpreting the outcomes. The effectiveness of the SIMSP will be evaluated by comparing the results with those of the POHP.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04339647 . Registered on 5 April 2020 - Retrospectively registered.
METHOD: Forty-six Malay adults (aged 23-74 years) with tinnitus were enrolled. They were instructed to fill in the BEST questionnaire accordingly. After one week, 21 of them were asked to fill in the questionnaire again. The other 25 subjects underwent tinnitus intervention for three months and following this; the BEST was administered to them again.
RESULTS: In the test-retest reliability task, the intraclass correlation values obtained were acceptably high (0.70-0.90). After the intervention, significant differences in the BEST result were found in the mind domain, main domain and composite score (p<0.05) with moderate effect sizes (0.61- 0.70).
CONCLUSION: The test-retest reliability of the BEST was found to be good. It also showed good responsiveness to intervention. The clinical usefulness of the BEST in assessing patients with tinnitus was further supported by the present study.
Methods: The original English version of the GCEQ underwent forward and backward translation into the Malay language. A cross-sectional study was conducted. The finalised Malay version was administered to 674 undergraduate students at the Health Campus of the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) with a mean age of 20.27 years (SD = 1.35 years). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the psychometric evaluation.
Results: The measurement model consisted of 20 observed items and five latent factors. CFA demonstrated adequate fit to the data: comparative fit index = 0.929; standardised root mean square residual = 0.052; root mean square error of approximation = 0.061 (90% CI = 0.056, 0.067). The composite reliability coefficients for the five latent factors ranged from 0.777 to 0.851. All the correlations between the factors were less than 0.85, so discriminant validity was achieved.
Conclusion: The findings suggested that the Malay version of the GCEQ is valid and reliable for assessing goal content in the exercise context of undergraduates at the Health Campus, USM.
METHODS: Thirty patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), age: 29.5 (SD = 5.6) years and 30 healthy gender-, age-, and education-matched control group participants, age: 28.8 (SD = 6.0) years, were recruited for this study. The participants in the healthy group were then randomly assigned into an EI (n = 15) group and a no-EI (n = 15) group. Similarly, the participants in the control group were then randomly assigned into EI (n = 15) and no-EI (n = 15) groups. The participants performed a serial reaction time (SRT) task and reaction times. A retention test was performed after 48 hours.
RESULTS: All participants reduced their reaction times across acquisition (MS group: 46.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001, and healthy group: 39.4 (SD = 3.3) minutes, P < 0.001). The findings for the within-participants effect of repeated measures of time were significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 71.33. P < 0.001). These results indicate that the interaction between group and time was significant (F(5.06, 283.7) = 6.44. P < 0.001), which indicated that the reaction time in both groups was significantly changed between the MS and healthy groups across times (B1 to B10). The main effect of the group (MS and healthy) (F(1, 56) = 22.78. P < 0.001) and also the main effect of no-EI vs EI (F(1, 56) = 4.71. P < 0.001) were significant.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that that RRMS patients are capable of learning new skills, but the provision of EI prior to physical practice is deleterious to implicit learning. It is sufficient to educate MS patients on the aim and general content of the training and only to provide feedback at the end of the rehabilitative session.