METHODS: Systematic database search was performed to recruit original human, animal or in vitro studies on khat and cancer. Sixteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and subjected to assessment using Risk of Bias (RoB). Office of Health and Translation (OHAT) approach was used to rate the confidence level in the body of evidence. The evidence was integrated to establish the relationships between khat, premalignant conditions and cancer.
RESULTS: Seven out of eight studies showed that khat causes premalignant oral lesions with moderate evidence level. Four studies showed that khat causes cancer with low evidence level and another three studies showed that khat has anti-cancer effect with moderate to high evidence level. Only one study suggested that khat is unrelated to cancer.
CONCLUSION: RoB and OHAT approach are reliable systematic tools to evaluate plant risk to cancer and provide objective and uniform summary regardless of the study type. In conclusion, our pooled analysis did not find a direct relationship between khat and cancer but anti-cancer effect would require to be proofed on human studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of ScreenMen.
METHODS: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Healthy men working in a banking institution were recruited to participate in this study. They were purposively sampled according to job position, age, education level, and screening status. Men were asked to use ScreenMen independently while the screen activities were being recorded. Once completed, retrospective think aloud with playback was conducted with men to obtain their feedback. They were asked to answer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Intention to undergo screening pre- and postintervention was also measured. Qualitative data were analyzed using a framework approach followed by thematic analysis. For quantitative data, the mean SUS score was calculated and change in intention to screening was analyzed using McNemar test.
RESULTS: In total, 24 men participated in this study. On the basis of the qualitative data, men found ScreenMen useful as they could learn more about their health risks and screening. They found ScreenMen convenient to use, which might trigger men to undergo screening. In terms of usability, men thought that ScreenMen was user-friendly and easy to understand. The key revision done on utility was the addition of a reminder function, whereas for usability, the revisions done were in terms of attracting and gaining users' trust, improving learnability, and making ScreenMen usable to all types of users. To attract men to use it, ScreenMen was introduced to users in terms of improving health instead of going for screening. Another important revision made was emphasizing the screening tests the users do not need, instead of just informing them about the screening tests they need. A Quick Assessment Mode was also added for users with limited attention span. The quantitative data showed that 8 out of 23 men (35%) planned to attend screening earlier than intended after using the ScreenMen. Furthermore, 4 out of 12 (33%) men who were in the precontemplation stage changed to either contemplation or preparation stage after using ScreenMen with P=.13. In terms of usability, the mean SUS score of 76.4 (SD 7.72) indicated that ScreenMen had good usability.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ScreenMen was acceptable to men in terms of its utility and usability. The preliminary data suggested that ScreenMen might increase men's intention to undergo screening. This paper also presented key lessons learned from the beta testing, which is useful for public health experts and researchers when developing a user-centered mobile Web app.
DESIGN: This is a mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) study. A questionnaire was created and used by three trained research assistants for the quantitative component of the study. The qualitative component of the study included in-depth interviews and focus group interviews.
SETTING: This study was conducted in rural areas of two states in the Northern Peninsular Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: Due to the sensitive nature of the study, the study sample was chosen using a snowball sampling method. Two of the three Northern states Mufti's approached consented to participate in the study.
RESULTS: Quantitative: There were 605 participants, most had undergone FGC (99.3%), were in the opinion FGC is compulsory in Islam (87.6%) and wanted FGC to continue (99.3%). Older respondents had FGC conducted by traditional midwives (X2=59.13, p<0.001) and younger age groups preferred medical doctors (X2=32.96, p<0.001) and would permit doctors (X2=29.17, p<0.001) to conduct FGC on their children. These findings suggest a medicalisation trend. Regression analysis showed the odds of FGC conducted by traditional midwives and nurses and trained midwives compared with medical doctors was 1.07 (1.05; 1.09) and 1.04 (1.01; 1.06), respectively. For every 1-year decrease in age, the odds of participants deciding medical doctors should perform FGC as compared with traditional midwives increase by 1.61.Qualitative: Focus group discussions showed most believed that FGC is compulsory in Islam but most traditional practitioners and the Mufti's stated that FGC is not compulsory in Islam.
CONCLUSION: Almost everyone in the community believed FGC is compulsory in Islam and wanted the practice to continue, whereas the traditional practitioners and more importantly the Mufti's, who are responsible in issuing religious edicts, say it is not a religious requirement.
DESIGN: Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P