OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the association between wheezing symptoms among toddlers attending DCCs and indoor particulate matter, PM10, PM2.5, and microbial count level in urban DCCs in the District of Seremban, Malaysia.
METHODS: Data collection was carried out at 10 DCCs located in the urban area of Seremban. Modified validated questionnaires were distributed to parents to obtain their children's health symptoms. The parameters measured were indoor PM2.5, PM10, carbon monoxide, total bacteria count, total fungus count, temperature, air velocity, and relative humidity using the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health analytical method.
RESULTS: All 10 DCCs investigated had at least one indoor air quality parameter exceeding the acceptable level of standard guidelines. The prevalence of toddlers having wheezing symptoms was 18.9%. There was a significant different in mean concentration of PM2.5 and total bacteria count between those with and those without wheezing symptoms (P = 0.02, P = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Urban DCCs are exposed to many air pollutants that may enter their buildings from various adjacent sources. The particle concentrations and presence of microbes in DCCs might increase the risk of exposed children for respiratory diseases, particularly asthma, in their later life.
METHODS: Currently available indicators from both household and facility surveys were collated through publicly available global databases and respective survey instruments. We then developed a suite of potential indicators and associated data points for the 45 WHO Essential Interventions spanning preconception to newborn care. Four types of performance indicators were identified (where applicable): process (i.e. coverage) and outcome (i.e. impact) indicators for both screening and treatment/prevention. Indicators were evaluated by an international expert panel against the eRegistries indicator evaluation criteria and further refined based on feedback by the eRegistries technical team.
RESULTS: Of the 45 WHO Essential Interventions, only 16 were addressed in any of the household survey data available. A set of 216 potential indicators was developed. These indicators were generally evaluated favourably by the panel, but difficulties in data ascertainment, including for outcome measures of cause-specific morbidity and mortality, were frequently reported as barriers to the feasibility of indicators. Indicators were refined based on feedback, culminating in the final list of 193 total unique indicators: 93 for preconception and antenatal care; 53 for childbirth and postpartum care; and 47 for newborn and small and ill baby care.
CONCLUSIONS: Large gaps exist in the availability of information currently collected to support the implementation of the WHO Essential Interventions. The development of this suite of indicators can be used to support the implementation of eRegistries and other data platforms, to ensure that data are utilised to support evidence-based practice, facilitate measurement and accountability, and improve maternal and child health outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using national administrative data from 1124 public primary care clinics. Eight indicators were selected to measure service utilisation covering antenatal, postnatal, women's health, child health, and immunisation services. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to evaluate changes in levels and trends of indicators during four different periods: pre-pandemic (January 2019-February 2020), during pandemic and first lockdown (March-May 2020), after the first lockdown was lifted (June-December 2020) and after the second lockdown was implemented (January-June 2021).
RESULTS: Most indicators showed no significant trend in monthly utilisation prior to the pandemic. The onset of the pandemic and first lockdown implementation were associated with significant decreasing trends in child health (-19.23%), women's health (-10.12%), antenatal care (-8.10%), contraception (-6.50%), postnatal care (-4.85%) and postnatal care 1-week (-3.52%) indicators. These indicators showed varying degrees of recovery after the first lockdown was lifted. The implementation of the second lockdown caused transient reduction ranging from -11.29% to -25.92% in women's health, contraception, child and two postnatal indicators, but no sustained reducing trend was seen afterwards. Two immunisation indicators appeared unaffected throughout the study period.
CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted MCH services utilisation in Malaysia. While most MCH services were negatively affected by the lockdown implementation with varying degrees of recovery, infant immunisation showed resilience throughout. This highlights the need for a targeted preparedness plan to ensure the resilience of MCH services in future crises.
METHODS: We searched the reference lists of included studies from four electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar) from inception until November 2020. We included pre-post, quasiexperimental and case-control studies, as well as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed medical play using the TBH concept as an intervention. Studies that involved sick patients and used interventions unlike the TBH were excluded. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this systematic review. Five specifically investigated the TBH method, while the others involved the same concept of medical play. Only three studies were RCTs. All of the studies report more than one outcome-mostly positive outcomes. Two report lower anxiety levels after intervention. Two found better healthcare knowledge, with one reporting increased feelings of happiness regarding visiting a doctor. Two studies found no change in anxiety or feelings, while another two found increased levels of fear and lowered mood after the medical play (which involved real medical equipment).
CONCLUSIONS: The practice of TBH has mostly positive outcomes, with lower anxiety levels and improved healthcare knowledge. Its effectiveness should be verified in future studies using a more robust methodology.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019106355.
METHODS: The following databases will be searched: Embase, MEDLINE, Emcare, EPPI-Centre database of health promotion research (BiblioMap) EPPI-Centre Database for promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Global Health, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Education Resource Information Center, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus, which indexes Latin America and the Caribbean, Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region, African Index Medicus, Western Pacific Region Index Medicus. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings, thesis and dissertations, policy and guidelines and their reference lists will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full text based on predefined eligibility criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews using the Population, Concept and Context framework and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist will be used to structure and report the findings.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics permission to conduct the scoping review is not required as the information collected is publicly available through databases. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.