PURPOSE: To explore the experiences of hope of palliative care patients.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted at University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Adult palliative care in-patients were recruited and interviewed with semi structured questions on hope. Transcripts from the interviews were thematically analyzed with qualitative data management software NVIVO.
FINDINGS: 20 palliative care patients participated in the study. The themes generated from thematic analysis were (1) The notions of hope, (2) The sources and barriers of hope and (3) The contents of hope.
CONCLUSION: Hope is an ever-present source of energy that gives people strength to carry on even in the most adverse situations. Understanding hope from the palliative care perspective may allow healthcare providers to develop strategies to better foster hope in the terminally ill.
METHODS: A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 1280 healthcare providers aged 18 years and older from 30 primary care clinics in Selangor, Malaysia. In this study, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory was used to assess burnout. The results were analyzed using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: The prevalence of personal burnout was 41.7%, followed by work-related burnout (32.2%) and client-related burnout (14.5%). The determinants for personal burnout in this study were younger age, being a doctor, higher COVID-19 exposure risk, do not know where to seek help, inability to handle stress, poorer sleep quality score, higher total COVID-19 fear score, higher total stress score, and lower total BRS score. The determinants of work-related burnout were younger age, being a doctor, longer years of working, higher COVID-19 exposure risk, do not know where to seek help, lower altruistic score, poorer sleep quality score, higher total stress score, and lower total brief resilience score (BRS) score. The determinants of client-related burnout were doctor, single/divorced, more than one attachment site, and higher satisfaction toward the infection control, inability to handle stress, higher total depression score, and lower total BRS score.
CONCLUSION: Every fourth out of ten suffered from personal burnout, one-third from work-related burnout, and one-seventh from client-related burnout among healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare systems must take care of healthcare workers' physical and emotional depletion, reducing the risk of burnout.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed literature search using 4 databases from Medline, Cinahl, PubMed and Scopus from inception up to March 15, 2021 and selected relevant cross-sectional studies. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence while risk factors were reported in odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.
RESULTS: We included 148 studies with 159,194 HCPs and the pooled prevalence for depression was 37.5% (95%CI: 33.8-41.3), anxiety 39.7(95%CI: 34.3-45.1), stress 36.4% (95%CI: 23.2-49.7), fear 71.3% (95%CI: 54.6-88.0), burnout 68.3% (95%CI: 54.0-82.5), and low resilience was 16.1% (95%CI: 12.8-19.4), respectively. The heterogeneity was high (I2>99.4%). Meta-analysis reported that both females (OR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.30-1.68) and nurses (OR = 1.21; 95%CI = 1.02-1.45) were at increased risk of having depression and anxiety [(Female: OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.49-1.85), (Nurse: OR = 1.36; 95%CI = 1.16-1.58)]. Females were at increased risk of getting stress (OR = 1.59; 95%CI = 1.28-1.97).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, one third of HCPs suffered from depression, anxiety and stress and more than two third of HCPs suffered from fear and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and ScienceDirect for observational studies in Asia from inception to August 2017. We selected cross sectional studies reporting the prevalence and risk factors for GDM. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of GDM and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Eighty-four studies with STROBE score ≥ 14 were included in our analysis. The pooled prevalence of GDM in Asia was 11.5% (95% CI 10.9-12.1). There was considerable heterogeneity (I2 > 95%) in the prevalence of GDM in Asia, which is likely due to differences in diagnostic criteria, screening methods and study setting. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk factors of GDM include history of previous GDM (OR 8.42, 95% CI 5.35-13.23); macrosomia (OR 4.41, 95% CI 3.09-6.31); and congenital anomalies (OR 4.25, 95% CI 1.52-11.88). Other risk factors include a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.81-3.80); pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.19-4.68); family history of diabetes (OR 2.77, 2.22-3.47); history of stillbirth (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.68-3.40); polycystic ovary syndrome (OR 2.33, 95% CI1.72-3.17); history of abortion (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.54-3.29); age ≥ 25 (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.96-2.41); multiparity ≥2 (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.52); and history of preterm delivery (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21-3.07).
CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of GDM among the Asian population. Asian women with common risk factors especially among those with history of previous GDM, congenital anomalies or macrosomia should receive additional attention from physician as high-risk cases for GDM in pregnancy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (2017: CRD42017070104 ).
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted from April to May 2020. The outcomes were assessed using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21, Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory, and World Health Organisation Quality of Life-BREF Scale (WHOQOL-BREF) in both English and validated Malay versions.
RESULTS: Mild-to-severe depression was found in 28.2% (n = 149) of the 528 respondents. Respondents with mild-to-severe depression were significantly younger (33.09 ± 10.08 versus 36.79 ± 12.47 years), without partner (71.8% versus 45.6%), lived in the red zone (85.9% versus 71.0%), and had lower household income as defined in the category of B40 (51.7% versus 39.3%) compared to those without depression (all p
METHOD: This online-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 1280 healthcare providers aged ≥18 years from 30 primary care clinics in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale was used to assess the level of fear, and the results were analysed using multiple linear regression.
RESULTS: The mean age of the respondents was 36 years, and the mean working experience was 11 years. The majority of the respondents were women (82.4%) and Malays (82.3%). The factors that were significantly correlated with higher levels of fear were underlying chronic disease (ß=1.12, P=0.002, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.08, 3.15), concern about mortality from COVID-19 (ß=3.3, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.19, 7.22), higher risk of exposure (ß=0.8, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.14, 5.91), concern for self at work (ß=2.8, P=0.002, 95% CI=0.08, 3.10) and work as a nurse (ß=3.6, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.30, 7.52), medical laboratory worker (ß=3.0, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.12, 4.27) and healthcare assistant (ß=3.9, P<0.001, 95% CI=0.17, 5.73). The level of fear was inversely correlated with a higher work-related stress management score (ß=-0.9, P<0.001, 95% CI=-0.14, -5.07) and a higher sleep quality score (ß=-1.8, P<0.001, 95% CI=-0.28, -10.41).
CONCLUSION: Family physicians should be vigilant and identify healthcare providers at risk of developing COVID-19-related fear to initiate early mental health intervention.
METHODS: Data came from the 2020 ITC Malaysia Survey, a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of adults who smoked (n=1047) aged 18 and older. They were asked on ever heard of, ever used, and currently using HTPs, and their reasons for using HTPs.
RESULTS: Overall, 25.4% (n= 324; 95% CI:22.3%-28.7%) of Malaysians who smoked reported ever used HTPs with 6.7% (n=85; 95% CI:22.3%-28.7%) were using them daily and 8.1% (n=110; 95% CI:6.4% -10.2%) were using HTPs non-daily. Most of them (57.2%) who dual use were of aged 25-39 and 97.3% were males. Among those who smoked daily, almost half (49.3%) were also using HTP daily. Among those who used HTPs daily and non-daily, curiosity (84.2%, 95% CI:78.4%-90.0%), taste (83.2%, 95% CI:77.3%-89.1%), and appealing technology (78.5%, 95% CI:71.3%-85.6%) were the most reported reasons. Among those who used HTPs daily, curiosity was the top reason (87.9%, 95% CI:78.9%-93.4%), while among non-daily, taste good was the top reason (81.9%, 95% CI:71.9%-88.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The very high use of HTPs among Malaysians who smoked requires continued public health surveillance that can inform the regulation of these novel tobacco products.
METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for published studies from 2010 to 2020. Searches were conducted by using the relevant country of interest as a search term (e.g. "Iran"), as well as relevant predefined keywords such as "cannabis", "marijuana", "hashish", "bhang "dual diagnosis", "use", "addiction", "prevalence", "co-morbidity", "substance use disorder", "legalization" or "policy" (English and non-English). These keywords were used in multiple combinations to create the search string in studies records' titles and abstracts. Official websites of respective governments and international organizations were also searched in English and non-English (national language country) languages to identify the current state of cannabis use, policies, and research in each of those countries.
RESULTS: Inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting of cannabis use, variation in policies (e.g., legalization), and intervention strategies across the reviewed countries were the main findings. European countries have dominated cannabis research output in PubMed, as compared to Asian countries (Thailand, Malaysia, India, Iran and Nepal).
CONCLUSIONS: Although global cannabis regulation is ongoing, the existing heterogeneities across countries in terms of policies and epidemiology can increase the burden of cannabis use disorders disproportionately and unpredictably. There is an urgent need to develop global strategies to address these cross-country barriers to improve early detection, prevention, and interventions for cannabis use and related disorders.