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.
BACKGROUND: No study has directly compared the risk factors associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and CRA.
STUDY: This was a cross-sectional study using multinomial logistic regression analysis of 4859 adults who participated in a health screening examination (2010 to 2011; analysis 2014 to 2015). CAC scores were categorized as 0, 1 to 100, or >100. Colonoscopy results were categorized as absent, low-risk, or high-risk CRA.
RESULTS: The prevalence of CAC>0, CAC 1 to 100 and >100 was 13.0%, 11.0%, and 2.0%, respectively. The prevalence of any CRA, low-risk CRA, and high-risk CRA was 15.1%, 13.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for CAC>0 comparing participants with low-risk and high-risk CRA with those without any CRA were 1.35 (1.06-1.71) and 2.09 (1.29-3.39), respectively. Similarly, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for any CRA comparing participants with CAC 1 to 100 and CAC>100 with those with no CAC were 1.26 (1.00-1.6) and 2.07 (1.31-3.26), respectively. Age, smoking, diabetes, and family history of CRC were significantly associated with both conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed a graded association between CAC and CRA in apparently healthy individuals. The coexistence of both conditions further emphasizes the need for more evidence of comprehensive approaches to screening and the need to consider the impact of the high risk of coexisting disease in individuals with CAC or CRA, instead of piecemeal approaches restricted to the detection of each disease independently.
METHODS: A retrospective study using a multistage sampling technique, at public-funded primary health care clinics was conducted. Antenatal utilisation level was assessed using a modified Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilisation index that measures the timing for initiation of care and observed-to-expected visits ratio. Adequacy of antenatal care content assessed compliance to routine care based on the local guidelines.
RESULTS: Intensive or "adequate-plus" antenatal care utilisation as defined by the modified index was noted in over half of the low-risk women. On the other hand, there were 26% of the high-risk women without the expected intensive utilisation. Primary- or non-educated high-risk women were less likely to have a higher antenatal care utilisation level compared with tertiary educated ones (OR = 0.20, P = 0.003). Half of all women had <80% of the recommended antenatal care content. A higher proportion of high-risk than low-risk women scored <80% of the routine care content (p<0.015). The majority of the additional laboratory tests were performed on high-risk women. Provision of antenatal education showed comparatively poor compliance to guidelines, more than half of the antenatal advice topics assessed were rarely provided to the women. High-risk women were associated with a higher prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Disproportionate utilisation of antenatal care according to risk level of pregnancy indicates the need for better scheduling of care. The risk-oriented approach often results in a tendency to focus on the risk conditions of the women. Training interventions are recommended to improve communication and to help healthcare professionals understand the priorities of the women. Further studies are required to assess the reason for disproportionate utilisation of antenatal care according to risk level and how delivery of antenatal advice can be improved, reviewing both user and provider perspectives.