METHODS: Relevant articles searches were performed through a systematic search of databases (EBSCOhost, PubMed, and Scopus) using the keywords 'knowledge', 'practice', 'parent', 'eye', 'problem', and 'children'. This review was conducted and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR. The methodological quality of the listed studies was assessed using A Modified McMaster Critical Review form based on the total score.
RESULT: From a total of 235 studies retrieved through literature review and pearling, 219 remained after removing duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts, 204 irrelevant studies were excluded, leaving 15. After a detailed full-text review, four studies were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria. Thus, this review includes the remaining 11 studies. All eleven studies (n = 11) show that parents's knowledge and practices vary. Some parents display good knowledge regarding children's eye health care, for example, understanding the importance of wearing spectacles, the significance of children having normal vision, and where to seek eye examinations. Five studies (n = 5) showed that parents have good practices such as consulting doctors and seeking eye examinations and treatment at the hospital. Six studies (n = 6) showed that parents have misconceptions regarding knowledge, practices, and treatment of children's eye health.
CONCLUSION: This scoping review found that parents' knowledge and practices regarding children's eye health are poor. Parents' perceptions and practices about the cause and treatment of eye problems were tainted with misconceptions. Therefore, implementing structured programs to enhance awareness and promote the adoption of healthy practices for children's eye health is required.
METHODS: A validated, bilingual, self-administered questionnaire comprising fifteen questions across the domains of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice was used and responses were assessed with 3 responses; one correct, one incorrect and one reflecting uncertainty. 507 patients from five orthodontic centres participated in this study. Data was analysed using SPSS. Continuous data was summarised as mean and standard deviation or median and inter-quartile range, as appropriate. Categorical data was summarised as frequency and percentage, then univariable analysis was carried out with Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.
RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 22.5 years (SD ± 2.8). A majority of respondents were female (64.1%) and from the lowest income bracket or B40 group (71%). Overall, for the knowledge domain, a majority of the respondents got all questions correct. 69.4% of patients were aware that incomplete treatment could lead to worsening of their malocclusion. 80.9% of respondents were aware of the need for a retainer upon completion of their orthodontic treatment. For the attitude section, 64.7% felt that they had to wait a very long time to see the orthodontist. In the Practice domain, the majority only got two of the five questions correct. Only 39.8% of respondents made an effort to alter dietary habits all of the time. In general, females and those with tertiary education fared better for all three domains.
CONCLUSIONS: The orthodontic patients in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya possess good knowledge about their treatment however their attitude and orthodontic related practices need to be improved.
METHODS: This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The literature search was carried out through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Original articles written in English and published between 2013 and 2023 were considered. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis was undertaken due to methodological heterogeneity in the included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 13 cross-sectional studies, two randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two mixed methods studies and one quasi-experiment with a control group were included. An overall low level of diabetes risk perception was reported particularly in those without apparent risk for diabetes. The 20 included studies reported widely varied measures for calculating diabetes risk perception. The influence of environmental factors on the risk perception of diabetes was highlighted.
LIMITATIONS: The use of study-specific and non-validated measures in the included studies weakens the authors' ability to compare across studies. The role of language and publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we included only English-language studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Another limitation is the exclusion of dimensions of risk perception such as optimistic bias as search terms.
CONCLUSION: The overall low risk perception of diabetes calls for urgent need of public health interventions to increase the risk perception of diabetes. In the future, researchers should ensure the validity and reliability of the measures being used. The influence of environmental factors on the diabetes risk perception indicates that diabetes preventive interventions targeting environmental factors may be effective in increasing the risk perception of diabetes.