METHODOLOGY: A prospective observational study on all consecutive children with head injuries at the General Hospital Kuala Lumpur between November 1993 and December 1994. The onset, type and frequency of seizures occurring within the first week of injury were documented. Using inpatients as a cohort, logistic regression analysis was used to determine clinical and radiological variables significantly associated with seizures. The outcome 6 months post-injury was assessed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale.
RESULTS: Fifty-three of 966 children (5.5%) developed seizures within the first week of trauma. Seven (13.2%) occurred within 1 h of injury, 30 (56.6%) between 1 and 24 h and 16 (30.2%) after 24 h. Factors significantly associated with early post-traumatic seizures were female sex, age less than 2 years, loss of consciousness for more than 24h and acute subdural haematoma (P<0.01). Children with seizures had a poorer outcome (death or severe disability) than inpatients without seizures (21/53 vs 19/182, P<0.001). The outcome was worst in children with recurrent partial seizures, who had a longer injury-seizure interval and were more likely to have focal neurologic deficits compared to those with sporadic or generalized seizures.
CONCLUSIONS: Anticonvulsant prophylaxis to minimize the adverse effects of early seizures in head injury should be considered for young children (less than 2 years old) with subdural haematoma and a prolonged duration of coma. Prompt and effective control of recurrent seizures is recommended.
METHODS: Twenty-nine children in each group, matched for age, sex and ethnicity, were assessed using the Glasgow outcome Scale (GOS), Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III), Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement ABC), Wide Range Assessment of Learning and Memory (WRAML) and a standardised neurological examination 6 months post-injury. Parental reporting of pre- and post-injury behaviour was documented using the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL).
RESULTS: Seven (24.1%) children with sCHI and three (10.3%) orthopaedic controls had residual motor deficits. Three (10.3%) children with sCHI and none in the other groups faced problems with independent ambulation. Twenty-seven (93.1%) of those with sCHI and all children in the other groups had GOS scores of good recovery or moderate disability. Twenty-two (81.5%) sCHI, five (18.5%) mCHI and one (3.7%) orthopaedic control reported a deterioration in school performance. MANOVAS identified a significant injury group effect for performance skills (P = 0.007), verbal skills (P = 0.002), memory and learning (P = 0.001) and motor skills (P = 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA for pre- and post-injury CBCL scores showed significant differences related to somatic complaints (P = 0.004), problems of socialising (P = 0.003), delinquency (P = 0.004), aggressiveness (P = 0.010), thought (P < 0.001) and attention (P < 0.001). Post-hoc univariate analysis showed the significant differences were between that of the sCHI children and the other two groups.
CONCLUSION: Although most sCHI children seemed to have made good physical recovery, there were cognitive, motor, memory and learning difficulties and behavioural problems concomitant with a deterioration in school performance compared with those with lesser or no head injury. This highlights the need for better integrated rehabilitation services to enable a gradual return into mainstream school.
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.