Displaying publications 21 - 27 of 27 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Karel SG, Robey B
    Asian Pac Cens Forum, 1988 Sep;2(1-2):1-4, 18-30.
    PMID: 12342138
    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine*
  2. Ariffin W
    Arch Dis Child, 1994 Nov;71(5):452-6.
    PMID: 7826121
    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine
  3. Chen PC
    Trop Geogr Med, 1971 Jun;23(2):173-82.
    PMID: 4327992
    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine
  4. Colson AC
    J Health Soc Behav, 1971 Sep;12(3):226-37.
    PMID: 5110300
    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine
  5. Chen PCY
    Soc Sci Med, 1975 Mar;9(3):171-80.
    PMID: 1129610 DOI: 10.1016/0037-7856(75)90054-2
    A variety of traditional medical systems thrive with vigour in Malaysia among the Malay, Orang Asli, Iban, Kadazan and Chinese peoples. The bases of these systems reflect the cultural concept of the “universe” of each ethnic group. It is noted that traditional medicine accomodates a larger proportion of illness thought to be due to supernatural causes than does modern medicine. Traditional medicine is supportive, personal and holistic in its approach in contrast with modern scientific medicine which tends to be mechanistic, impersonal, organ-oriented and individualistic. Modern and traditional medical systems are viewed as potentially complementary rather than contradictory. The traditional medicine-man can be viewed as a ritual specialist and a focus of social and emotional support for the patient, such a role being complementary to the role of the modern physician.
    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine
  6. Moy FM, Atiya AS
    JUMMEC, 2005;8:33-38.
    Malaysia has undergone rapid pace of industrialization and urbanization in recent decades and this has brought about imminent changes in the lifestyle of Malaysians. This is a cross-sectional study which attempts to examine the lifestyle practices and the prevalence of obesity of a group of security guards and their spouses of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Data collection was conducted by both the methods of face-to-face interview and self-administered questionnaire. The respondents were surveyed on lifestyle practices such as smoking habits, exercise and eating pattern. Anthropometric measurement such as weight and height were also taken to establish the extend of obesity by using Body Mass Index (BMI). This study reveals that the community did have some unhealthy lifestyle practices such as smoking (27.7%; 95%CI 20.2%, 36.2%), low prevalence of adequate exercise (13.8%; 95%CI 8.4%, 21.0%); high prevalence of overweight and obesity (64%; 95%CI 55.1%, 72.3%); and high prevalence of co-morbidities such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases. In conclusion, the community is considered to be a vulnerable and high-risk group for morbidity and mortality with the above predisposed risk factors. KEYWORDS: Lifestyle practices, overweight and obesity
    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine
  7. Arora A, Khattri S, Ismail NM, Kumbargere Nagraj S, Eachempati P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019 08 08;8:CD012595.
    PMID: 31425627 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012595.pub3
    BACKGROUND: School dental screening refers to visual inspection of children's oral cavity in a school setting followed by making parents aware of their child's current oral health status and treatment needs. Screening at school intends to identify children at an earlier stage than symptomatic disease presentation, hence prompting preventive and therapeutic oral health care for the children. This review evaluates the effectiveness of school dental screening in improving oral health status. It is an update of the original review, which was first published in December 2017.

    OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

    SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 4 March 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Register of Studies, to 4 March 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 March 2019), and Embase Ovid (15 September 2016 to 4 March 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases; however, the search of Embase was restricted to the last six months due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.

    SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (cluster or parallel) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention or with one type of screening compared with another.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

    MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials (five were cluster-RCTs) with 20,192 children who were 4 to 15 years of age. Trials assessed follow-up periods of three to eight months. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two were based in India and one in the USA. We assessed two trials to be at low risk of bias, two trials to be at high risk of bias and three trials to be at unclear risk of bias.None of the trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening.None of the trials reported the proportion of children with untreated caries or other oral diseases, cost effectiveness or adverse events.Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was found to be, in part, due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individual-level RCT). Due to the inconsistency, we downgraded the evidence to 'very low certainty' and are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison.Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening and showed a pooled effect estimate of RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.16), suggesting a possible benefit for screening (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when criteria-based screening was compared to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08) (very low-certainty evidence).In one trial, a specific (personalised) referral letter was compared to a non-specific one. Results favoured the specific referral letter with an effect estimate of RR 1.39 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.77) for attendance at general dentist services and effect estimate of RR 1.90 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.06) for attendance at specialist orthodontist services (low-certainty evidence).One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation, with an effect estimate of RR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.71) (low-certainty evidence).Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trials included in this review evaluated short-term effects of screening. We found very low-certainty evidence that is insufficient to allow us to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for traditional school dental screening in improving dental attendance. For criteria-based screening, we found low-certainty evidence that it may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening. However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence).We found low-certainty evidence to conclude that personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific counterparts. We also found low-certainty evidence that screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone. For children requiring treatment, we found very-low certainty evidence that was inconclusive regarding whether or not a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' was better than a standard referral letter.We did not find any trials addressing possible adverse effects of school dental screening or evaluating its effectiveness for improving oral health.

    Matched MeSH terms: Preventive Medicine
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links