METHODS: Phase 1 of the study involves developing the Malay-version NHP knowledge questionnaire, whereas Phase 2 involves a cross-sectional study of 446 randomly selected low-income respondents to determine their level of health-promoting lifestyle and the associated factors. The respondents' sociodemographic, socioeconomic, health monitoring activity, health status, and NHP knowledge data were obtained using the newly developed Malay-version NHP questionnaire and the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP II) questionnaire. The independent variables include sociodemographic status, annual health monitoring activities, health status and NHP knowledge were analysed using simple and multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: In this study, the 10-item NHP knowledge questionnaire developed in the Malay version contains two domains [safe use (eight items) and point of reference (two items)] (total variance explained: 77.4%). The mean of NHP knowledge score was 32.34 (standard deviation [SD] 7.37). Meanwhile, the mean score of health-promoting lifestyle was 109.67 (SD 25.01). The highest and lowest scores of health-promoting lifestyles are attributed to spiritual growth and physical activity, respectively. Ethnicity is associated with a higher health-promoting lifestyle level, same goes to the occupational status - NHP knowledge interaction. "Unclassified" education status and annual blood glucose level monitoring are associated with a lower level of health-promoting lifestyle.

METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental study conducted in two sub-urban communities in Seremban, Malaysia. A total of 268 participants with prediabetes aged between 18 to 65 years old were assigned to either the community-based lifestyle intervention (Co-HELP) (n = 122) or the usual care (n = 146) groups. The Co-HELP program was delivered in partnership with the existing community volunteers to incorporate diet, physical activity, and behaviour modification strategies. Participants in the Co-HELP group received twelve group-based sessions and two individual counselling to reinforce behavioural change. Participants in the usual care group received standard health education from primary health providers in the clinic setting. Primary outcomes were fasting blood glucose, 2-hour plasma glucose, and HbA1C. Secondary outcomes included weight, BMI, waist circumference, total cholesterol, triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, physical activity, diet, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

RESULTS: An intention-to-treat analysis of between-groups at 12-month (mean difference, 95% CI) revealed that the Co-HELP participants' mean fasting plasma glucose reduced by -0.40 mmol/l (-0.51 to -0.28, p<0.001), 2-hour post glucose by -0.58 mmol/l (-0.91 to -0.24, p<0.001), HbA1C by -0.24% (-0.34 to -0.15, p<0.001), diastolic blood pressure by -2.63 mmHg (-3.79 to -1.48, p<0.01), and waist circumference by -2.44 cm (-4.75 to -0.12, p<0.05) whereas HDL cholesterol increased by 0.12 mmol/l (0.05 to 0.13, p<0.01), compared to the usual care group. Significant improvements were also found in HRQOL for both physical component (PCS) by 6.51 points (5.21 to 7.80, p<0.001) and mental component (MCS) by 7.79 points (6.44 to 9.14, p<0.001). Greater proportion of participants from the Co-HELP group met the clinical recommended target of 5% or more weight loss from the initial weight (24.6% vs 3.4%, p<0.001) and physical activity of >600 METS/min/wk (60.7% vs 32.2%, p<0.001) compared to the usual care group.

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that a culturally adapted diabetes prevention program can be implemented in the community setting, with reduction of several diabetes risk factors and improvement of HRQOL. Collaboration with existing community partners demonstrated a promising channel for the wide-scale dissemination of diabetes prevention at the community level. Further studies are required to determine whether similar outcomes could be achieved in communities with different socioeconomic backgrounds and geographical areas.

Methods: A link to the online survey was sent to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Asia interested in AYA cancer care. Questions covered the demographics and training of HCPs, their understanding of AYA definition, availability and access to specialised AYA services, the support and advice offered during and after treatment, and factors of treatment non-compliance.

Results: We received 268 responses from 22 Asian countries. There was a striking variation in the definition of AYA (median lower age 15 years, median higher age 29 years). The majority of the respondents (78%) did not have access to specialised cancer services and 73% were not aware of any research initiatives for AYA. Over two-thirds (69%) had the option to refer their patients for psychological and/or nutritional support and most advised their patients on a healthy lifestyle. Even so, 46% did not ask about smokeless tobacco habits and only half referred smokers to a smoking cessation service. Furthermore, 29% did not promote human papillomavirus vaccination for girls and 17% did not promote hepatitis B virus vaccination for high-risk individuals. In terms of funding, 69% reported governmental insurance coverage, although 65% reported that patients self-paid, at least partially. Almost half (47%) reported treatment non-compliance or abandonment as an issue, attributed to financial and family problems (72%), loss of follow-up (74%) and seeking of alternative treatments (77%).