METHODS: This study was divided into two phases. Phase I tested the reliability of the Malay-VHI-10 while Phase II was a cross-sectional study with two-stage sampling. In Phase II, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic and teaching characteristics, depression, anxiety and stress scale (Malay version of DASS-21); and health-related quality of life (Malay version of SF12-v2). Complex sample analysis was conducted using multivariate Poisson regression with robust variance.
RESULTS: In Phase I, the Spearman correlation coefficient and Cronbach alpha for total VHI-10 score was 0.72 (p < 0.001) and 0.77 respectively; showing good correlation and internal consistency. The ICCs ranged from 0.65 to 0.78 showing fair to good reliability and demonstrating the subscales to be reliable and stable. A total of 6039 teachers participated in Phase II. They were primarily Malays, females, married, had completed tertiary education and aged between 30 to 50 years. A total of 10.4% (95% CI 7.1, 14.9) of the teachers had voice disorder (VHI-10 score > 11). Compared to Malays, a greater proportion of ethnic Chinese teachers reported voice disorder while ethnic Indian teachers were less likely to report this problem. There was a higher prevalence ratio (PR) of voice disorder among single or divorced/widowed teachers. Teachers with voice disorder were more likely to report higher rates of absenteeism (PR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.33, 2.19), lower quality of life with lower SF12-v2 physical (0.98, 95% CI 0.96, 0.99) and mental (0.97, 95% CI 0.96, 0.98) component summary scales; and higher anxiety levels (1.04, 95% CI 1.02, 1.06).
CONCLUSIONS: The Malay-VHI-10 is valid and reliable. Voice disorder was associated with increased absenteeism, marginally associated with reduced health-related quality of life as well as increased anxiety among teachers.
METHODS: We used an adapted version of a 26-item validated questionnaire, including four subscales: knowledge, attitude, behavior, and future use of evidence-based practice (EBP). The four components were compared among the students in the three medical schools before the module using one-way ANOVA. At the end of the module, we measured only knowledge and attitudes. We computed Cronbach's α to assess the reliability of the responses in our population. To assess the change in knowledge and attitudes, we used the paired t-test in the comparison of scores before and after the module.
RESULTS: In total, 526 students (224 UI, 202 UM, and 100 UMCU) completed the questionnaires. In the three medical schools, Cronbach's α for the pre-module total score and the four subscale scores always exceeded 0.62. UMCU students achieved the highest pre-module scores in all subscales compared to UI and UM with the comparison of average (SD) score as the following: knowledge 5.04 (0.4) vs. 4.73 (0.69) and 4.24 (0.74), p<0.001; attitude 4.52 (0.64) vs. 3.85 (0.68) and 3.55 (0.63), p<0.001; behavior 2.62 (0.55) vs. 2.35 (0.71) and 2.39 (0.92), p=0.016; and future use of EBP 4.32 (0.59) vs. 4.08 (0.62) and 3.7 (0.71), p<0.01. The CE-EBM module increased the knowledge of the UMCU (from average 5.04±0.4 to 5.35±0.51; p<0.001) and UM students (from average 4.24±0.74 to 4.53±0.72; p<0.001) but not UI. The post-module scores for attitude did not change in the three medical schools.
CONCLUSION: EBP teaching had direct short-term effects on knowledge, not on attitude. Differences in pre-module scores are most likely related to differences in the system and infrastructure of both medical schools and their curriculum.
DESIGN: Two-year prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Kuala Pilah, a district in Negeri Sembilan approximately 100 km from the capital city, Kuala Lumpur.
PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults aged 60 and older. Using a multistage cluster sampling strategy, 1,927 respondents were recruited and assessed at baseline, of whom 1,189 were re-assessed 2 years later.
MEASURES: EAN was determined using the modified Conflict Tactic Scale, and chronic pain was assessed through self-report using validated questions.
RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic pain was 20.4%. Cross-sectional results revealed 8 variables significantly associated with chronic pain-age, education, income, comorbidities, self-rated health, depression, gait speed, and EAN. Abused elderly adults were 1.52 times as likely to have chronic pain (odds ratio=1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.03-2.27), although longitudinal analyses showed no relationship between EAN and risk of chronic pain (risk ratio=1.14, 95% CI=0.81-1.60). This lack of causal link was consistent when comparing analysis with complete cases with that of imputed data.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate no temporal relationship between EAN and chronic pain but indicated cross-sectional associations between the two. This might indicate that, although EAN does not lead to chronic pain, individuals with greater physical limitations are more vulnerable to abuse. Our study also shows the importance of cohort design in determining causal relationships between EAN and potentially linked health outcomes.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a community-based prospective cohort study using randomly selected households from the national census. A multistage sampling method was employed to obtain a total of 2496 older adults living in the rural Kuala Pilah district. The study is divided into two phases: cross-sectional study (baseline), and a longitudinal follow-up study at the third and fifth years. Elder mistreatment was measured using instrument derived from the previous literature and modified Conflict Tactic Scales. Outcomes of elder mistreatment include mortality, physical function, mental health, quality of life and health utilisation. Logistic regression models are used to examine the relationship between risk factors and abuse estimates. Cox proportional hazard regression will be used to estimate risk of mortality associated with abuse. Associated annual rate of hospitalisation and health visit frequency, and reporting of abuse, will be estimated using Poisson regression.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Center (MEC Ref 902.2) and the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-12-1444-11726). Written consent was obtained from all respondents prior to baseline assessment and subsequent follow-up. Findings will be disseminated to local stakeholders via forums with community leaders, and health and social welfare departments, and published in appropriate scientific journals and presented at conferences.
METHODS: A total of eight cattle, goat and sheep farms in six states in Peninsular Malaysia participated in a cross-sectional survey between August and October 2013.
RESULTS: A total of 151 (72.2%) out of 209 farmworkers answered the questionnaire. More than half of the farmworkers (n = 91) reported an experience of tick bites. Farms with monthly acaricide treatment had significantly (P<0.05) a low report of tick bites. Tick bite exposure rates did not differ significantly among field workers and administrative workers. The mean total knowledge score of ticks for the overall farmworkers was 13.6 (SD±3.2) from 20. The mean total tick bite preventive practices score for all farmworkers was 8.3 (SD±3.1) from 15. Fixed effect model showed the effects of four factors on tick bite prevention: (1) farms, (2) job categories (administrative workers vs. field workers), (3) perceived severity of tick bites, and (4) perceived barriers to tick bite prevention.
CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of farmworkers, including administrative workers, reported an experience of tick bites. The effectiveness of monthly acaricide treatment was declared by low reports of tick bites on these farms. Tick bite preventive practices were insufficient, particularly in certain farms and for administrative workers. Our findings emphasise the need to have education programmes for all farmworkers and targeting farms with low prevention practices. Education and health programmes should increase the perception of the risk of tick bites and remove perceived barriers of tick bite prevention.