METHODS: Data collection was carried out in 3-time points: baseline (T1), screening (T2), and post-treatment (T3). Respondents who had significant subjective cognitive impairment were randomly divided into two groups: intervention (n = 30) and waitlist (n = 30). Respondents in the intervention group received 4 sessions of 1 hour of ACT therapy.
FINDINGS: Respondents in the intervention group showed significant improvement in subjective cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety, and psychological inflexibility after the ACT intervention (p
OBJECTIVE: To understand the psychological processes involved in the experiencing of suffering at the end phase of life.
METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 palliative care inpatients from an academic medical centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The transcripts were thematically analysed with NVIVO9.
RESULTS: 5 themes of psychological processes of suffering were generated: (1) perceptions, (2) cognitive appraisals, (3) hope and the struggles with acceptance, (4) emotions and (5) clinging. A model of suffering formation was constructed.
CONCLUSION: The findings may inform the development of mechanism-based interventions in the palliation of suffering.
METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Seventy-three patients with advanced cancer with an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned into either the MBST group (n=34) or the control group (n=39).
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall suffering score in the MBST group compared with the control group (U=432.5, median1=-2.0, median2=-1.0, z=-2.645, p=0.008). There was also significant improvement in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (U=483.5, median1=-4.0, median2=-3.0, z=-1.994, p=0.046), and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (U=252.0, median1=+14.5, median2=+5.0, z=-4.549, p=0.000) in the MBST group compared with the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provided evidence that the practice of MBST during patient care could promote positive psychosocial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to examine the effect of mindful gratitude journaling on suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.
METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Ninety-two adult patients with advanced cancer, and an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned to either a mindful gratitude journaling group (N=49) or a routine journaling group (N=43).
RESULTS: After 1 week, there were significant reductions in the overall suffering score from the baseline in both the intervention group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-2.0, 95% CI=-2.7 to -1.4, t=-6.125, p=0.000) and the control group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-1.6, 95% CI=-2.3 to -0.8, t=-4.106, p=0.037). There were also significant improvements in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference=-3.4, 95% CI=-5.3 to -1.5, t=-3.525, p=0.000) and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (mean difference=7.3, 95% CI=1.5 to 13.1, t=2.460, p=0.014) in the intervention group after 7 days, but not in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that 7 days of mindful gratitude journaling could positively affect the state of suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN1261800172191) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biofilm yield of 32 Helicobacter pylori strains (standard strain and 31 clinical strains) were determined by crystal-violet assay and grouped into poor, moderate and good biofilm forming groups. Whole genome sequencing of these 32 clinical strains was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Annotation and comparison of the differences between the genomic sequences were carried out using RAST (Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology) and SEED viewer. Genes identified were confirmed using PCR.
RESULTS: Genes identified to be associated with biofilm formation in H. pylori includes alpha (1,3)-fucosyltransferase, flagellar protein, 3 hypothetical proteins, outer membrane protein and a cag pathogenicity island protein. These genes play a role in bacterial motility, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) synthesis, Lewis antigen synthesis, adhesion and/or the type-IV secretion system (T4SS). Deletion of cagA and cagPAI confirmed that CagA and T4SS were involved in H. pylori biofilm formation.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that biofilm formation in H. pylori might be genetically determined and might be influenced by multiple genes. Good, moderate and poor biofilm forming strain might differ during the initiation of biofilm formation.
AIM: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among male patients on methadone and buprenorphine treatments.
METHODS: Relevant studies published from inception until December 2012 were identified by searching PubMed, OVID, and Embase. Studies were selected using prior defined criteria. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and odds ratio were assessed thoroughly.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To examine the prevalence and odds ratio of sexual dysfunctions among the methadone and buprenorphine groups.
RESULTS: A total of 1,570 participants from 16 eligible studies were identified in this meta-analysis. The studies provided prevalence estimates for sexual dysfunction among methadone users with a meta-analytical pooled prevalence of 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.65). Only four studies compared sexual dysfunction between the two groups, with a significantly higher combined odds ratio in the methadone group (OR = 4.01, 95% CI, 1.52-10.55, P = 0.0049).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence showed that the prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher among the users of methadone compared with buprenorphine. Patients with sexual difficulty while on methadone treatment were advised to switch to buprenorphine.