AIMS AND METHODS: A randomised controlled, non-blinded, cross-over study involving 38 patients (with colostomies and ileostomies) compared the test device to a similar device from the same manufacturer but without the tape border. The main objective was to assess wear time for non-inferiority as a measure of efficacy. Secondary efficacy assessment included peristomal skin condition using the DET (discolouration, erosion and tissue growth) score and patient acceptability, which was assessed through questionnaires using Likert-scale options. Safety was assessed according to the incidence and intensity of device-related adverse events, and the condition of the peristomal skin.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Analysis of results in the per-protocol population showed an average wear time of 4.5 days for both devices and demonstrated non-inferiority. DET scores were similar in both groups, and both had low rates of device-related adverse events, all of which related to peristomal skin. Patients said the devices were user friendly. While the two devices are similar, some patients may find one with an adhesive tape more suited to their needs.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Delphi consensus technique was conducted online to review and evaluate the framework module. A panel of experts, including rehabilitation medicine physicians, occupational therapists, and clinical psychologists in Malaysia, was invited to participate in this study. For each round, the expert consensus was defined as more than 90% of the expert panel agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposed items.
RESULTS: A total of 33 practitioners completed the three Delphi rounds. 72.7% of the expert panel have been practising in their relevant clinical fields for more than six years (M = 10.67, SD = 5.68). In Round 1, 23% of the experts suggested that the framework module for attention training required further improvements, specifically in the language (M = 1.97, SD = 0.75) and instructions (M = 2.03, SD = 0.71) provided. In Round 2, 15% of the experts recommended additional changes in the instruction (M = 2.15, SD = 0.67) for attention training. Amendments made to the framework module in line with the recommendations provided by the experts resulted in a higher level of consensus, as 94% to 100% of the experts in Round 3 concluded the framework module was suitable and comprehensive for our breast cancer survivors. Following the key results, the objectives were practical, and the proposed approaches, strategies, and techniques for attention and memory training were feasible. The clarity of the instructions, procedures, verbatim transcripts, and timeframe further enhanced the efficacy and utility of the framework module.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found out that the cognitive intervention framework module for breast cancer survivors with cognitive impairment following chemotherapy can be successfully developed and feasible to be implemented using Delphi technique.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted among pre-clinical medical and dental students using convenience sampling. Questions regarding sociodemographic profile and responses to the Smartphone Addiction Scale Short Version (SAS-SV) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Score questionnaire (DASS-21) were collected. Multiple logistic regression testing was used to analyse the factors associated with smartphone addiction.
RESULTS: We invited 409 pre-clinical medical and dental students to participate voluntarily, resulting in a response rate of 80.2%. The prevalence of high-risk smartphone addiction among the participants was 47.9%. Male participants, participants who used smartphones mainly for social media, and participants with depressive symptoms were more likely to have a high risk of smartphone addiction. Medical students, participants who spent less than 3 hours per day on a smartphone, and participants who used smartphones for education-related activities were less likely to have a high risk of smartphone addiction.
CONCLUSION: Smartphone addiction prevalence among pre-clinical medical and dental students was high. Therefore, the authorities should overcome this problem by implementing early measures.
DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study that used a convenient sampling technique.
STUDY SAMPLE: One hundred and fifty-seven parents of typically developing children aged between 4 months and 7 years participated in the study. Forty-nine completed the Malay PEACH + in a pen-to-paper format (Aim 1). One hundred and eight parents completed PEACH + online (69 completed the Malay version and 39 the English version), and 20 of them completed the questionnaire twice (Aim 2).
RESULTS: The PEACH + in Malay showed high internal consistency and item-total correlation. The normative data revealed that scores for frequency of auditory behaviour increased rapidly with age until about 20 months and reached an asymptote of around 90% by about 40 months of age. A similar trend was observed for ease of listening scores, which asymptoted around 85%.
CONCLUSIONS: The validated Malay PEACH + Rating Scale can be used as a guide to monitor auditory functional performance and listening efforts of Malaysian children in real-world environments.