METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used to evaluate interrater reliability where the HOME FAST was used simultaneously in the homes of older people by 2 raters and a prospective design was used to evaluate test-retest reliability with a separate group of older people at different times in their homes. Both studies took place in an urban area of Kuala Lumpur.
RESULTS: Professionals from 9 professional backgrounds participated as raters in this study, and a group of 51 community older people were recruited for the interrater reliability study and another group of 30 for the test-retest reliability study. The overall agreement was moderate for interrater reliability and good for test-retest reliability. The HOME FAST was consistently rated by different professionals, and no bias was found among the multiple raters.
CONCLUSION: The HOME FAST can be used with confidence by a variety of professionals across different settings. The HOME FAST can become a universal tool to screen for home hazards related to falls.
METHODS: A survey was distributed to national experts in infectious diseases and health-care authorities (March 2015-April 2016), collecting information on local recommendations, costs and perception of barriers for implementation.
RESULTS: Forty-nine of the 79 contacted countries (62% response rate) provided a complete analyzable data. RVI was recommended in 27/49 countries (55%). Although five countries have recommended RVI since 2006, a large number (16, 33%) included RVI in a National Immunization Schedule between 2012 and 2014. The costs of vaccination are covered by the government (39%), by the GAVI Alliance (10%) or public and private insurance (8%) in some countries. However, in most cases, immunization is paid by families (43%). Elevated cost of vaccine (49%) is the main barrier for implementation of RVI. High costs of vaccination (rs=-0.39, p=0.02) and coverage of expenses by families (rs=0.5, p=0.002) significantly correlate with a lower immunization rate. Limited perception of RV illness severity by the families (47%), public-health authorities (37%) or physicians (24%) and the timing of administration (16%) are further major barriers to large- scale RVI programs.
CONCLUSIONS: After 10years since its introduction, the implementation of RVI is still unacceptably low and should remain a major target for global public health. Barriers to implementation vary according to setting. Nevertheless, public health authorities should promote education for caregivers and health-care providers and interact with local health authorities in order to implement RVI.
METHODS: The subjects consisted of preterm infants 24-34 weeks' gestation born at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre. Infants were randomly assigned to NeoCap or control groups. Infants in both groups were wrapped in polyethylene sheets from the neck downwards immediately after birth without prior drying. Infants in the control group had their heads dried and subsequently covered with cotton caps while infants in the NeoCap group had polyethylene caps put on without drying. Axillary temperature was measured on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and after having been stabilized in the incubator.
RESULTS: Among the 80 infants recruited, admission hypothermia (axillary temperature <36.5°C) was present in 37 (92.5%) and in 40 (100%) in the NeoCap and control groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in mean temperature on NICU admission between the two groups (35.3 vs 35.1°C, P = 0.36). Mean post-stabilization temperature, however, was significantly higher in the NeoCap group (36.0 vs 35.5°C, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Combined use of polyethylene body wrap and polyethylene cap was associated with a significantly higher mean post-stabilization temperature compared with polyethylene body wrap and cotton cap.
METHODS: A 40-question anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to anesthesiologists and anesthesia trainees in six countries in the Asia-Pacific (Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, India and South Korea). Participants were polled about their current practices in patient warming and temperature measurement across the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods. Questions were also asked regarding various individual and environmental barriers to compliance.
RESULTS: In total, 1154 valid survey responses were obtained and analyzed. 279 (24.2%) of respondents prewarm, 508 (44.0%) perform intraoperative active warming, and 486 (42.1%) perform postoperative active warming in the majority of patients. Additionally, 531 (46.0%) measure temperature preoperatively, 767 (67.5%) measure temperature intraoperatively during general anesthesia, and 953 (82.6%) measure temperature postoperatively in the majority of patients. The availability of active warming devices in the operating room (p