Materials and Methods: The study used a qualitative exploratory design, comprising 12 in-depth interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to explore all relevant aspects of the topic, which were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim. All the interviews were conducted in a few beauty salons in purposively selected city areas in the state of Kedah, Malaysia.
Results: Of the 12 patients, seven (58%) reported a positive experience of facial candling treatment, with improvement in the condition of their allergic rhinitis. Specific themes about the experience of facial candling treatment that were identified within the transcript data included knowledge about facial candling, options for disease treatment, effectiveness of facial candling, sources of information, comparison, application of treatment, treatment budget, and safety. The major strength lies in the fact that reasons for using facial candling were uncovered from the perspectives of people with allergic rhinitis through the in-depth interviews.
Conclusions: The motives of these participants for using facial candling are mainly due to cultural influence and its low cost of treatment. There were mixed responses from the participants about the usefulness of facial candling. Most of the respondents had not assessed the safety of prolonged use of facial candling and regarded it as a safe procedure as this has been practiced for generations.
METHODS: This study measured 2-PD thresholds for the dominant and nondominant index finger and dominant and nondominant forearm in groups of students in a 4-year chiropractic program at the International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Measurements were made using digital calipers mounted on a modified weighing scale. Group comparisons were made among students for each year of the program (years 1, 2, 3, and 4). Analysis of the 2-PD threshold for differences among the year groups was performed with analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The mean 2-PD threshold of the index finger was higher in the students who were in the higher year groups. Dominant-hand mean values for year 1 were 2.93 ± 0.04 mm and 1.69 ± 0.02 mm in year 4. There were significant differences at finger sites (P < .05) among all year groups compared with year 1. There were no significant differences measured at the dominant forearm between any year groups (P = .08). The nondominant fingers of the year groups 1, 2, and 4 showed better 2-PD compared with the dominant finger. There was a significant difference (P = .005) between the nondominant (1.93 ± 1.15) and dominant (2.27 ± 1.14) fingers when all groups were combined (n = 104).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated that the finger 2-PD of the chiropractic students later in the program was more precise than that of students in the earlier program.