METHODS: Staff involved in student support from three medical schools were invited to participate in five workshops facilitated by an Australian educator. Video discussion triggers of students presenting with concerns were used in workshop activities, including written exercises, group discussions and reflection. The quantitative and qualitative data collected included categorical and free-text participant responses to questionnaires and structured field notes from local faculty developers using peer observation.
FINDINGS: Academic and clinician-teacher participants predominated in the workshops. Of 66 participant questionnaires (92% response rate), over 90% agreed that the workshop was relevant, and over 95% agreed that the videos facilitated discussion and the sharing of experiences. Field notes confirmed that participants were engaged by the videos, but identified that one student scenario and the approaches for seeking support in others were not immediately transferable to local contexts. The adaptation of facilitation techniques used in Australian workshops was needed to address audience responses.
DISCUSSION: Our findings confirm faculty development principles of content relevancy and incorporation of reflection. To enhance transferability, we recommend co-facilitation with local faculty members, the explicit signposting of topics and re-contextualising key concepts through reflective discussion.
METHODS: The study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the opinions of secondary school students on the SDS implementation in their schools. Data from focus group discussions involving Form Two (14-year-olds) and Form Four (16-year-olds) students from the selected schools were transcribed verbatim and coded using the NVivo software before framework method analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Among the strengths of the SDS were the convenience for students to undergo annual oral examination and dental treatment without having to visit dental clinics outside the school. The SDS also reduced possible financial burdens resulting from dental treatment costs, especially among students from low-income families. Furthermore, SDS helped to improve oral health awareness. However, the oral health education provided by the SDS personnel was deemed infrequent while the content and method of delivery were perceived to be less interesting. The poor attitude of the SDS personnel was also reported by the students.
CONCLUSION: The SDS provides effective and affordable dental care to secondary school students. However, the oral health promotion and education activities need to be improved to keep up with the evolving needs of the target audience.
DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis on all textbooks used in Malaysian public schools in the year 2019 were conducted to identify the content and structure of information delivery through 11 years of formal education. Information related to hearing health was extracted and categorised according to the themes that emerged. Further analysis was done to characterise the usefulness of the information in promoting active hearing care based on the type of information delivered.
STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 148 elementary and secondary school textbooks were reviewed.
RESULTS: Fourteen textbooks (4 elementary and 10 secondary levels) were found to have relevant hearing health information covering topics of sound, ear and hearing, noise and hearing loss. The contents were mostly theoretical and lacked information about noise-induced hearing loss and proper hearing care.
CONCLUSION: Minimal hearing health information was present in the Malaysian school curriculum. The content was inadequate for teaching students about hearing loss prevention. Areas of improvement and research are recommended to improve school-based hearing health education in Malaysia.
METHODOLOGY: A paper-based survey was conducted, classroom-style, on all dental students (Year 1 to Year 5, n = 336, response rate = 84.5%) using a validated questionnaire, developed from previous literature. For each BG technique, students used a visual analogue scale to mark their acceptability score; this figure was later categorised into different acceptance levels. Students' mean acceptability scores and acceptance of each BG technique were consecutively analysed via independent t test and chi-square test (significance level, P 0.01). Percentages of those who accepted communicative techniques involving parents demonstrated significant differences across subjects of different academic years, between pre-clinical and clinical groups of respondents and amongst clinical students. Other techniques with such significant differences, along with low acceptance, included modelling, voice control and disallowing the child to speak.
CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide useful information for curricular enhancement aimed at equipping dental students with the ability to apply appropriate and effective BG techniques during patient care.
METHODS: The initial 11-factor and 132-item AEEMI was distributed to 1930 pre-clinical and clinical year medical students from 11 medical schools in Malaysia. The study examined the construct validity of the AEEMI using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
RESULTS: The best-fit model of AEEMI was achieved using 5 factors and 26 items (χ 2 = 3300.71 (df = 1680), P