METHODS: Prostate cancer cases diagnosed between 2003 and 2008 which met with the inclusion criteria were included in the study. One hundred and twelfth (112) pairs of cases and controls matched by age and ethnicity were analysed. McNemar Odds Ratios (OR(M)) were calculated using McNemar Calculator software for univariate analysis while conditional logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis, both using SPSS version 12.0.
RESULTS: Most of the prostate cancer patients (68.8%) that came for treatment in UKMMC were above 70 years old. The majority were Chinese (50.0%) followed by Malay (46.4%) and Indian (3.6%). Multivariate analysis showed cases were more likely to have a first-degree relative with a history of cancer (OR= 3.77, 95% CI= 1.19-11.85), to have been exposed to pesticides (OR= 5.57, 95% CI= 1.75-17.78) and consumed more meat (OR= 12.23, 95% CI= 3.89-39.01). Significantly reduced risks of prostate cancer were noted among those consuming more vegetables (OR= 0.12, 95% CI= 0.02-0.84), more tomatoes (OR= 0.35, 95% CI= 0.13-0.93) and those who had frequent sexual intercourse (OR= 0.44, 95% CI= 0.19-0.96).
CONCLUSION: Some lifestyle and occupation factors are strong predictors of the occurrence of prostate cancer among patients in UKMMC. More importantly, with the identification of the potentially modifiable risk factors, proper public health intervention can be improved.
METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial will be carried out by recruiting a total of 66 eligible allergic rhinitis patients who fulfill the inclusion criteria from a university health center. The subjects will be randomly assigned into 2 groups: intervention group receiving facial candling treatment and control group (no treatment given). Samples of blood and nasal mucus will be collected right before and after intervention. Samples collected will be analyzed. The primary outcomes are the changes in the level of SP in both blood and mucus samples between both groups. The secondary outcomes include the levels of inflammatory mediators (ie, tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin (IL)-3, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-13) and the severity of allergic rhinitis symptoms as measured by a visual analogous scale and QoL using the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ).
ETHICAL AND TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocols are approved from the Ethical and Research Committee of the Universiti Teknologi MARA (REC/113/15). The trial is registered under the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12616000299404). The trial was registered on 03/07/2016 and the first patient was enrolled on 10/12/2016.
CONCLUSION: Facial candling is one of the unique treatments using candles to reduce the severity of symptoms and inflammation. This is the first ever study conducted on facial candling that will give rise to new knowledge underlying the effects of facial candling on severity of symptoms and inflammation relief mechanism mediated by substance P and inflammatory mediators.
METHODS: Data from all respiratory admissions in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC) from 1st January 2014 to 31st December 2015 were collected retrospectively from chart and electronic database. A total of 16 weeks of haze period had been formally dated by the Department of Environment using the definition of weather phenomenon leading to atmospheric visibility of less than 10 km. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to estimate rate ratios and 95% CI.
RESULTS: There were 1968 subjects admitted for respiratory admissions in UKMMC during the study period. Incidence rates per week were significantly different between the two groups with 27.6 ± 9.2 cases per week during the haze versus 15.7 ± 6.7 cases per week during the non-haze period (P < 0.01). A total of 4% versus 2% was admitted to the intensive care unit in the haze and the non-haze groups, respectively (P = 0.02). The mean ± SD lengths of stay was 12.1 ± 5.2 days; the haze group had a longer stay (18.2 ± 9.7 days) compared to the non-haze groups (9.7 ± 3.9) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The annual SEA haze is associated with increased respiratory admissions.
METHODS: This study adopted a comparative case study design with a qualitative focus to identify similarities and differences of the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the insulin PDA across different sites. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare providers and 15 patients from five public health clinics under the Ministry of Health in Malaysia. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged which were: 1) time constraint; 2) PDA costs; 3) tailoring PDA use to patient profile; 4) patient decisional role; and 5) leadership and staff motivation. Based on the interviews and drawing on observations and interview reflection notes, time constraint emerged as the common prominent factor that cut across all the clinics, however, tailoring PDA use to patient profile; patient decisional role; leadership and staff motivation varied due to the distinct challenges faced by specific clinics. Among clinics from semi-urban areas with more patients from limited education and lower socio-economic status, patients' ability to comprehend the insulin PDA and their tendency to rely on their doctors and family to make health decisions were felt to be a prominent barrier to the insulin PDA implementation. Staff motivation appeared to be stronger in most of the clinics where specific time was allocated to diabetes team to attend to diabetes patients and this was felt could be a potential facilitator, however, a lack of leadership might affect the insulin PDA implementation even though a diabetes team is present.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found time constraint as a major potential barrier for PDA implementation and effective implementation of the insulin PDA across different public health clinics would depend on leadership and staff motivation and, the need to tailor PDA use to patient profile. To ensure successful implementation, implementers should avoid a 'one size fits all' approach when implementing health innovations.