METHODS: The newly developed CKDPS instrument was tested on 300 patients with diabetes mellitus in a cross-sectional study. The number of domains, model-fit index, construct validity, and internal consistency of this instrument were determined using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
RESULTS: The EFA yielded nine domains: illness identity, timeline motivation, medical practice and co-operation for Social Psychology, and perceived benefit, perceived barriers, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, and perceived cue to action for HBM. Four items with low factor loading were removed. CFA yielded the following fit indices for Social Psychology: the goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.889, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.934, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.053, normed chi-square (NC) = 1.831; and the following for HBM: GFI = 0.834, CFI = 0.957, RMSEA = 0.053, NC = 1.830. Values of Cronbach's α ranged between 0.760 and 0.909.
CONCLUSIONS: The CKDPS includes 61 questions across nine domains, divided under two categories of Social Psychology and HBM. It is also a valid and reliable tool for measuring diabetic patients' perception of CKD prevention that can be used in larger studies.
AIM: To determine the neighbourhood factors influencing the prevalence of abnormal mental health status among adolescents in an urban population.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted among adolescents aged 13, 14 and 16 years old from thirteen secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur using validated questionnaires. A total of 567 adolescents participated in this study.
RESULTS: The prevalence of abnormal mental health status in this study was 4.4%. In multivariable analysis, female (OR = 1.79, 95%CI: 1.11-2.89), having divorced parents (OR = 3.53, 95%CI: 1.96-6.36), high educational stress (OR = 8.18, 95%CI: 4.25-15.75), medium educational stress (OR = 2.99, 95%CI: 1.53-5.83), whose house has been broken in before (OR = 2.02, 95%CI: 1.11-3.68) and living in a neighbourhood with low socioeconomic status (OR = 2.09, 95%CI: 1.23-3.56) were more likely to have abnormal mental health status.
CONCLUSIONS: Neighbourhood factors were found to be significant in determining adolescents' mental health status. The findings emphasize the importance of those in the public health sector to highlight these significant neighbourhood factors to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Swift action needs to be taken by the Ministry to provide solutions related to the neighbourhood factors and this can contribute to improvement in the adolescents' mental health.