Methodology: WESIHAT 2.0 was devised in a senior-friendly style, which includes touch screen, greater font size, larger icons, and employed multimedia components of text, images, and videos. The components employed in WESIHAT 2.0 were a screening tool called TUA-WELLNESS, 10 guides for memory improvement, health diary, and guide for a healthy menu. This application assessed a group of 73 candidates consisting of elderly people, health professionals, caregivers, and information technology (IT) professionals for 1 month.
Results: All the elderly people, caregivers, and 75% of IT and health professionals were satisfied with the subject matter of WESIHAT 2.0. About more than half of the elderly people, caregivers, and IT and health professionals had given a consensus on the comprehensive ease of the terminologies, sentences, images, table, and advice related to diet included in the web application. Proposals for improvements of the web portal included suggestions such as using smaller sentences, using greater font size, adding more images, and avoiding the use of unfamiliar terminologies.
Conclusion: WESIHAT 2.0 is a suitable tool for educating older people about the lifestyle modification strategies to slower progression to cognitive impairment, with regard to the significance of expert advice.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVE: This article provides the reader with an understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology, phases and clinical features of idiopathic frozen shoulder. It also outlines patients at risk of developing idiopathic frozen shoulder and addresses an evidence-based conservative approach to the management of this condition.
DISCUSSION: The primary care physician plays a pivotal part in the identification and management of idiopathic frozen shoulder, with the vast majority of patients responding to conservative management. A shared care approach with a skilled physiotherapist is essential.
METHODS: This was an experimental study conducted at five hospitals and 20 primary health care clinics in the state of Perak. Adults over 18 years of age were recruited using sequential sampling. The first phase of data collection consisted of a pre-intervention assessment, an educational session, and an immediate post-intervention assessment. Each educational session was conducted by trained pharmacists and lasted approximately 15 min for each participant. A two-week post-intervention assessment was then conducted via a phone call to re-assess the participants using the same questionnaire.
RESULTS: Out of 300 questionnaires distributed, 234 were completed for our study. The mean age of participants was 40.7 ± 14.6 years old. Most of the respondents were female (143, 61.1%), Malay (162, 69.2%), and had tertiary education (162, 69.2%). A mean score was generated for each domain, with knowledge towards antibiotic resistance: 2.83 ± 1.28 pre-intervention, 3.76 ± 0.62 immediate post-intervention, and 3.67 ± 0.78 two-weeks post-intervention (total score: 4.00); knowledge towards antibiotic use: 2.03 ± 1.56 pre-intervention, 4.56 ± 1.46 immediate post-intervention, and 4.32 ± 1.48 two-weeks post-intervention (total score: 6.00); perception towards antibiotic use: 2.83 ± 1.38 pre-intervention, 4.25 ± 1.06 immediate post-intervention, and 4.22 ± 1.02 two-weeks post-intervention (total score: 5.00). Significant improvement in the mean scores were found before and after intervention in all domains (p