MATERIALS AND METHODS: For women in the intervention arm (n = 130), they received one session of individualized health education at 36 gestational weeks, a booklet of diabetes prevention, five-session of postpartum booster educational program which were conducted including 1 session of dietary and exercise counseling by dietician and physiotherapist at 6 weeks postpartum. For women in the control group (n = 168), standard treatment whereby they had received group therapy on diet and physical activity modification by dietician and staff nurses during the antenatal period.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups for most of the variables examined except for educational level which the control group had a higher education than the intervention group. The women assigned to system-based intervention have a significant difference to GDM women who were assigned to the control group for LDL and HDL but not in anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, glucose index, total cholesterol, and triglyceride. In addition, it was found that the incidence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) 2 years after delivery was 20% in the intervention arm compared to 17% in the control arm.
CONCLUSION: The system-based intervention was not statistically superior to the control intervention as there is no difference in terms of incidence of T2DM between the intervention and control group. We, therefore, suggested that more intensive interventions are needed to prevent GDM from developing into T2DM.
METHOD: Through an online survey, we used Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) to measure the level of anxiety associated with the COVID-19 crisis and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) to assess the coping responses adopted to handle stressful life events. Coping strategies were classified as adaptive and maladaptive, for which the aggregate sores were calculated. Multiple linear regression was used to determine the predictors of anxiety adjusted for potentially confounding variables. Results from 434 participants were available for analysis.
RESULTS: The mean score (SD) of the CAS was 1.1 (1.8). The mean scores of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies were 35.69 and 19.28, respectively. Multiple linear regression revealed that maladaptive coping [Adjusted B coefficient = 4.106, p-value < 0.001] and presence of comorbidities [Adjusted B coefficient = 1.376, p-value = 0.025] significantly predicted anxiety.
CONCLUSION: Maladaptive coping and presence of comorbidities were the predictors of coronavirus anxiety. The apparent lack of anxiety in relation to COVID-19 and movement restriction is reflective of the reported high level of satisfaction with the support and services provided during the COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia. Adaptive coping strategies were adopted more frequently than maladaptive. Nevertheless, public education on positive coping strategies and anxiety management may be still be relevant to provide mental health support to address the needs of the general population.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out among staffs and students of Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR). The survey consists of basic sociodemographic information, 22 items on knowledge on COVID-19, 3 items on perceived self-risk, 2 items on preparedness & perceived self-efficacy, 10 items on preventive (own) measures, 9 items assessing unwanted and desirable behaviors during the pandemic. Simple and multiple linear regression were performed to determine the factors associated with knowledge, preventive measures adopted, self-risk perception, preparedness & perceived self-efficacy, and behaviors.
RESULTS: A total of 434 responded to the survey of whom the majority (85.1%) had high scores for knowledge (mean score of 18.72 out of 22). A significant positive association was found between knowledge and older age (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.046 (0.022), p = 0.039), those from medical faculty (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.870 (0.420), p = 0.039) and residence in high-risk areas (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.831 (0.295), p = 0.005). Predictors for higher perception of COVID-19 risk included presence of COVID-19 cases among social contacts (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.751 (0.308), p = 0.015) and living with elderly (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 1.137 (0.296), p < 0.001), while that for perception of preparedness and self-efficacy were living with children (adjusted Beta coefficient (SE) = 0.440 (0.173), p = 0.011) and absence of positive cases among social contacts (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.418 (0.183), p = 0.023). Good preventive measures among the respondents were positively associated with knowledge (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.116 (0.025), p < 0.001), as well as with female gender (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.348 (0.142), p = 0.014). Unwanted behavior was significantly associated with male gender (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.664 (0.321), p = 0.039) and COVID-19 positive status (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 9.736 (3.297), p = 0.003). Knowledge of COVID-19 (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.069 (0.035), p = 0.048) and being married (adjusted B coefficient (SE) = 0.917 (0.462), p = 0.048) were the predictors of desirable behavior.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the UTAR community had demonstrated a good level of knowledge and preventive behaviors, albeit with some areas for improvement.