METHODS: Recurrent abdominal pain was defined as at least three episodes of abdominal pain, severe enough to affect a child's activities over a period longer than 3 months. A health-care consulter was defined as a child who had been brought to see a doctor regarding recurrent abdominal pain at least once in the past year. Children aged between 9 and 15 years were randomly chosen from schools in the city of Petaling Jaya, given questionnaires to fill in and interviewed to determine whether they fulfilled the above criteria for having symptoms of recurrent abdominal pain and for being a consulter. Bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed on the data obtained.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three (9.61%) children fulfilled the criteria for recurrent abdominal pain out of a total of 1488 schoolchildren interviewed. There were 65 (45.5%) consulters and 78 (54.5%) non-consulters. Among the consulters, the male to female ratio was 1:1.4, while among the non-consulters, the ratio was 1:1.1. On bivariate analysis, the Chinese had a significantly lower likelihood to consult a doctor (P = 0.02), while the other two races did not show any increase in consultation (Malays, P = 0.08; Indians, P = 0.21). Among those with severe pain, there was a significantly higher prevalence of consulters (P < 0.01). Furthermore, those whose sleep was interrupted by abdominal pain were more likely to consult (P < 0.01). Children who had consulted a doctor were more likely to be missing school because of abdominal pain (P < 0.01). Following multiple logistic regression analysis, ethnicity was no longer a significant predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 45.5% of schoolchildren with recurrent abdominal pain in an urban setting were brought to see a doctor. Predictors of recent health-care consultation were school absence, pain severity and interruption of sleep caused by abdominal pain.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Four PPSs, including headache, chest pain, low back pain, and muscle pain, and subjective depressive symptoms were assessed using the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised.
FINDINGS: Out of 528 participants, 390 (73.9%) had at least one PPS. After adjusting for sex, depression severity, disability, fatigue, physical health status, and mental health status, PPSs were found to be associated with crying easily, blaming oneself, feeling lonely, feeling blue, and worrying too much.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Almost three-quarters of Asian patients with MDD experience PPSs. PPSs are associated with some subjective feelings of depression.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the occurrence of lower back, shoulder, and neck pain among Malaysian office workers.
METHODS: 752 subjects (478 women and 274 men) were randomly selected from the Malaysian office workers population of 10,000 individuals. The participants were aged between 20-50 years and had at least one year of work experience. All participants completed the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ). Instructions to complete the questinnaire were given to the participants under the researchers supervision in the morning before they started a day of work. The participants were then classified into four categories based on body mas index (BMI) (BMI:≤18.4, 18.5-24.99, 25-29.99, ≥30) and age (Age: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, ≥50).
RESULTS: There was a significant association between pain severity in gender and right (p = 0.046) and left (p = 0.041) sides of the shoulders. There was also a significant association between BMI and severity of pain in the lower back area (p = 0.047). It was revealed that total pain score in the shoulders was significantly associated with age (p = 0.041).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated that a significant correlation existed between pain servity for gender in both right and left shoulder. These findings require further scientific investigation as do the identification of effective preventative stratgies.
DESIGN: Two-centre, randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two adults who had undergone cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy were included.
INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups at 4 (SD 1) days after surgery. The control group received the usual advice to restrict their upper limb use for 4 to 6 weeks (ie, restrictive sternal precautions). The experimental group received advice to use pain and discomfort as the safe limits for their upper limb use during daily activities (ie, less restrictive precautions) for the same period. Both groups received postoperative individualised education in hospital and via weekly telephone calls for 6 weeks.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was physical function assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Secondary outcomes included upper limb function, pain, kinesophobia, and health-related quality of life. Outcomes were measured before hospital discharge and at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Adherence to sternal precautions was recorded.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in physical function between the groups at 4 weeks (MD 1.0, 95% CI -0.2 to 2.3) and 12 weeks (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.9 to 1.6) postoperatively. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Modified (ie, less restrictive) sternal precautions for people following cardiac surgery had similar effects on physical recovery, pain and health-related quality of life as usual restrictive sternal precautions. Similar outcomes can be anticipated regardless of whether people following cardiac surgery are managed with traditional or modified sternal precautions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTRN12615000968572. [Katijjahbe MA, Granger CL, Denehy L, Royse A, Royse C, Bates R, Logie S, Nur Ayub MA, Clarke S, El-Ansary D (2018) Standard restrictive sternal precautions and modified sternal precautions had similar effects in people after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy ('SMART' Trial): a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 97-106].