METHODS: The study adopted a cross-sectional design with purposive sampling. Participants who consented and met the criteria for bloating based on the Rome IV classification completed designated questionnaires. Independent variables comprised health beliefs, intentions, health-promoting behaviors, social support, depression, and anxiety, while dependent variables included bloating severity (general and within 24 h) and QoL. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was conducted utilizing Mplus 8.0 to analyze the relationships between these factors.
RESULTS: A total of 323 participants, with a mean age of 27.69 years (SD = 11.50), predominantly females (64.7%), volunteered to participate in the study. The final SEM model exhibited good fit based on various indices (CFI = 0.922, SRMR = 0.064, RMSEA (95% CI) = 0.048 (0.041-0.054), p-value = 0.714), with 15 significant path relationships identified. The model explained 12.0% of the variance in severity within 24 h, 6% in general severity, and 53.8% in QoL.
CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the significant influence of health beliefs, intentions, behaviors, social support, depression, and anxiety on symptom severity and QoL in individuals experiencing abdominal bloating.
DATA SOURCES: We searched studies published between 1980 and 2014 on endometriosis and ART outcome. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases and performed a manual search.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 1,346 articles were identified, and 36 studies were eligible to be included for data synthesis. We included published cohort studies and randomized controlled trials.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Compared with women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis undertaking in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection have a similar live birth rate per woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.06, 13 studies, 12,682 patients, I=35%), a lower clinical pregnancy rate per woman (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94), 24 studies, 20,757 patients, I=66%), a lower mean number of oocyte retrieved per cycle (mean difference -1.98, 95% CI -2.87 to -1.09, 17 studies, 17,593 cycles, I=97%), and a similar miscarriage rate per woman (OR 1.26, 95% CI (0.92-1.70, nine studies, 1,259 patients, I=0%). Women with more severe disease (American Society for Reproductive Medicine III-IV) have a lower live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and mean number of oocytes retrieved when compared with women with no endometriosis.
CONCLUSION: Women with and without endometriosis have comparable ART outcomes in terms of live births, whereas those with severe endometriosis have inferior outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to recommend surgery routinely before undergoing ART.
DESIGN: AVERT is a prospective, parallel group, assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial. This paper presents data assessing the generalisability of AVERT.
SETTING: Acute stroke units at 44 hospitals in 8 countries.
PARTICIPANTS: The first 20,000 patients screened for AVERT, of whom 1158 were recruited and randomised.
MODEL: We use the Proximal Similarity Model, which considers the person, place, and setting and practice, as a framework for considering generalisability. As well as comparing the recruited patients with the target population, we also performed an exploratory analysis of the demographic, clinical, site and process factors associated with recruitment.
RESULTS: The demographics and stroke characteristics of the included patients in the trial were broadly similar to population-based norms, with the exception that AVERT had a greater proportion of men. The most common reason for non-recruitment was late arrival to hospital (ie, >24 h). Overall, being older and female reduced the odds of recruitment to the trial. More women than men were excluded for most of the reasons, including refusal. The odds of exclusion due to early deterioration were particularly high for those with severe stroke (OR=10.4, p<0.001, 95% CI 9.27 to 11.65).
CONCLUSIONS: A model which explores person, place, and setting and practice factors can provide important information about the external validity of a trial, and could be applied to other clinical trials.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000185561) and Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01846247).
METHODOLOGY: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 640 indigenous Temiar OA participants from a remote settlement in Gua Musang, Kelantan, Malaysia. Data was collected using face-to-face interviews with a standardised pretested questionnaire and through blood samples collected for haemoglobin (Hb) testing. Anaemia status was determined using the Hb level cut-off established by the World Health Organization (WHO). Descriptive analysis was used to determine the prevalence of anaemia, while multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with anaemia.
RESULTS: The overall anaemia prevalence was 44.7% (286/640), and the prevalence rates of mild, moderate and severe anaemia were 42.7, 50.7 and 6.6%, respectively. Anaemia-specific prevalence varied significantly by age group (p 40 (aOR 0.25, p
METHODS: A cross-sectional study used to collect the data via an online cross using a form created from a google questionnaire forms. A total of 1,802 respondents were gathered at a single point in time. The authors used the Health Belief Model (HBM) approach to measure and create a model for the prevention of local transmission of COVID-19.
RESULTS: This study found that more than half of the respondents still had low perceived susceptibility (16%) and severity (43%). There were only 3% respondents with perceived barriers and 19% with strong self-efficacy. The findings showed that self-efficacy and perceived barriers had statistically significant relationships with preventive behavior (p-value <0.05). The goodness of fit index showed that the proposed model was not fit for the data (RMSE<0.080, GFI>0.950, AGFI>0.950, SRMR<0.100), which means that it was not fit to describe the empirical phenomenon under study.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that more than half of the respondents still had low perceived susceptibility (84%) and severity (67%), but more than half had high perceived benefits (54%). Only a few respondents had significant barriers to implementing COVID-19 transmission prevention behaviours (3%). Still, most respondents had low perceived self-efficacy (81%), and only 60% had good behaviours related to COVID-19 prevention. In the context of COVID-19 preventive behaviour, we recommended to improve perceived susceptibility and severity by providing the correct information (which contain information about how people susceptible to the virus and the impact of infected by the virus) with the local cultural context.