METHODS: The research was conducted by correlation method) using Structural Equation Modeling). The statistical population consisted of all women and men with type 2 diabetes. Two hundred fifty-three samples were selected by convenience sampling method. The participants responded to the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, the Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills, and the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory.
RESULTS: The results showed that the total path coefficient between the adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = 0.243, P = 0.005) was positive and significant, and the total path coefficient between the maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = -0.453, P = 0.001) was negative and significant. The path coefficient between cognitive flexibility and mindfulness (β = 0.273, P = 0.009) was positive and significant. The indirect path coefficient between the adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = 0.094, P = 0.007) was positive and significant, and the indirect path coefficient between the maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = -0.117, P = 0.009) was negative and significant.
CONCLUSION: Improving emotion regulation skills increases cognitive flexibility and mindfulness in patients with type 2 diabetes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this nonrandomized trial on interrupted time series study, flipped class was conducted on group of 112 students of bachelor of pharmacy semester V. The topic selected was popular herbal remedies of the complementary medicine module. Flipped class was conducted with audio and video presentation in the form of a quiz using ten one-best-answer type of multiple-choice questions covering the learning objectives. Audience response was captured using web-based interaction with Poll Everywhere. Feedback was obtained from participants at the end of FC activity and debriefing was done.
RESULTS: Randomly selected 112 complete responses were included in the final analysis. There were 47 (42%) male and 65 (58%) female respondents. The overall Cronbach's alpha of feedback questionnaire was 0.912. The central tendencies and dispersions of items in the questionnaire indicated the effectiveness of FC. The low or middle achievers of quiz session (pretest) during the FC activity were three times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1-8.9) at the risk of providing neutral or negative feedback than high achievers (P = 0.040). Those who gave neutral or negative feedback on FC activity were 3.9 times (95% CI = 1.3-11.8) at the risk of becoming low or middle achievers during the end of semester examination (P = 0.013). The multivariate analysis of "Agree" or "Disagree" and "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" was statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: This study provides insight on how the pharmacy students learn and develop their cognitive functions. The results revealed that the FC activity with Poll Everywhere is an effective teaching-learning method.
METHODOLOGY: Data for the study, consisting of 2553 older adults aged 60 years and older, were drawn from a nationwide household survey entitled "Determinants of Wellness among Older Malaysians: A Health Promotion Perspective" conducted in 2010.
RESULTS: Current smokers had lower rates of cognitive impairment compared to never smokers (17.4% vs 25.9%), while cognitive function in former or ex-smokers was almost similar to that of the never smokers. Findings from multiple logistic regression analysis showed that current smokers were 37% less likely to be cognitively impaired, compared to the never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = .63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .46-.86) while controlling for potential confounders. No difference in cognitive function was observed between former smokers and never smokers (OR = .94; 95% CI: .71-1.25).
CONCLUSION: Although the findings indicated a negative association between cigarette smoking and cognitive impairment, we are unable to conclude whether this relationship is causal or affected by other unmeasured confounding factors, especially survival bias.