METHODOLOGY: All the subjects who met the inclusion criteria were recruited for this comparative cross-sectional study, which was conducted from May to July 2020 in two hospitals in Kelantan, Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire, namely, the Malay-version Vicarious Traumatization Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Social Support Survey were utilized. A descriptive analysis, independent t-test, and analysis of covariance were performed using SPSS Statistics version 26.
RESULTS: A total of 160 frontline and 146 non-frontline healthcare providers were recruited. Vicarious traumatization was significantly higher among the non-frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 79.7 [75.12, 84.30]) compared to the frontline healthcare providers (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]: 74.3 [68.26, 80.37]) after adjusting for sex, duration of employment, and social support.
CONCLUSION: The level of vicarious traumatization was higher among non-frontline compared to frontline healthcare providers. However, the level of severity may differ from person to person, depending on how they handle their physical, psychological, and mental health. Hence, support from various resources, such as colleagues, family, the general public, and the government, may play an essential role in the mental health of healthcare providers.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2021 until April 2022, and SLE patients were recruited to complete the SLEQoL, LupusQoL and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in Malay language. Disease activity were recorded using the modified SLE Disease Activity Index (M- SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 (BILAG-2004) index. Presence of organ damage was determined using the SLICC Damage index. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to determine internal consistency while exploratory factor analysis was done to determine the construct validity. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlation with SF-36. Multiple linear regression analysis was deployed to determine the factors affecting each domain of SLEQoL and LupusQoL.
RESULTS: A total of 125 subjects were recruited. The Cronbach's α value for the Malay-SLEQoL (M-SLEQoL) and Malay-LupusQOL (M-LupusQoL) was 0.890 and 0.944 respectively. Exploratory factor analysis found formation of similar number of components with the original version of questionnaires and all items have good factor loading of >0.4. Both instruments also had good concurrent validity with SF-36. M-SLEQoL had good correlations with BILAG-2004 and M-SLEDAI scores. Musculoskeletal (MSK) involvement was independently associated with lower M-SLEQoL in physical function, activity and symptom domains. Meanwhile, MSK and NPSLE were associated with fatigue in M-LupusQoL.
CONCLUSION: Both M-SLEQoL and M-LupusQoL are reliable and valid as disease -specific QoL instruments for Malaysian patients. The M-Lupus QoL has better discriminative validity compared to the M-SLEQoL. SLE patients with MSK involvement are at risk of poor QoL in multiple domains including physical function, activity, symptoms and fatigue.
METHODS: The studies used in this systematic review were selected from the articles published from 1996 to 2019, in national and international databases including SID, Magiran, Iranmedex, Irandoc, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science (ISI). These databases were thoroughly searched, and the relevant ones were selected based on some plausible keywords to the aim of this study. Heterogeneity index between studies was determined using Cochran's test and I2. Due to heterogeneity in studies, the random effects model was used to estimate standardized mean difference.
RESULTS: From the systematic review, a meta-analysis was performed on 31 articles which were fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sample including of 714 subjects was selected from the intervention group, and almost the same sample size of 720 individuals were selected in the control group. Based on the results derived from this meta-analysis, the standardized mean difference between the intervention group before and after the intervention was respectively estimated to be 23.8 ± 6.2 and 16.9 ± 3.2, which indicates that the physical exercise reduces fatigue in patients with MS.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study extracted from a detailed meta-analysis reveal and confirm that physical exercise significantly reduces fatigue in patients with MS. As a results, a regular exercise program is strongly recommended to be part of a rehabilitation program for these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited women referred to physiotherapy to manage OA. The measurements included fatigue severity (fatigue severity scale); pain level (numerical rating scale); obesity indices (body mass index, fat %, waist circumference); functional performances (upper limb strength, lower limb strength, mobility, exercise capacity and quality of life). A simple linear regression analysis was used to determine which independent variable may be associated with fatigue severity.
RESULTS: Ninety-six women with unilateral KOA participated in this study (Mean age, 55.70, Standard Deviation, SD 6.90) years; Mean fatigue severity, 34.51, SD 14.03). The simple linear regression analysis showed that pain level (β=4.089, p<0.001), fat % (β=0.825, p<0.001) and QoL (β=0.304, p<0.001) were significantly associated with fatigue. After controlling for pain level, only fat % was significantly associated with fatigue (β=0.581, p=0.005).
CONCLUSION: Pain level, fat %, and QoL appear to be associated with fatigue severity in women with KOA. In addition, pain symptoms may interact with factors associated with fatigue severity.
METHOD: Electronic literature search on PubMed was conducted using the following keywords: methylphenidate, cancer, carcinoma, oncology, oncological and tumour. We identified forty two relevant studies and publications on the use of methylphenidate in cancer patients to be included in this review.
RESULTS: Methylphenidate was found to have some evidence in reducing opioid-induced sedation, improving cognitive symptoms and reduction of fatigue in cancer patients. Nevertheless, the results were inconsistent due to variations in the study populations, study design and outcome measures, among others. There was minimal evidence on its use in treating depression. Otherwise, methylphenidate was generally well-tolerated by patients.
CONCLUSION: This review potentially supports the use of methylphenidate for opioid-induced sedation, cognitive decline and fatigue in cancer patients. Further placebo-controlled trials would help in strengthening the evidence for this treatment.