METHODS: A cross-sectional study among 15,639 Malaysian adult males aged 18 years and above was conducted using proportional to size stratified sampling method. The socio-demographic variables examined were level of education, occupation, marital status, residential area, age group and monthly household income.
RESULTS: The prevalence of smoking among adult males in Malaysia was 46.5% (95% CI: 45.5-47.4%), which was 3% lower than a decade ago. Mean age of smoking initiation was 18.3 years, and mean number of cigarettes smoked daily was 11.3. Prevalence of smoking was highest among the Malays (55.9%) and those aged 21-30 years (59.3%). Smoking was significantly associated with level of education (no education OR 2.09 95% CI (1.67-2.60), primary school OR 1.95, 95% CI (1.65-2.30), secondary school OR 1.88, 95% CI (1.63-2.11), with tertiary education as the reference group). Marital status (divorce OR 1.67, 95% CI (1.22-2.28), with married as the reference group), ethnicity (Malay, OR 2.29, 95% CI ( 1.98-2.66; Chinese OR 1.23 95% CI (1.05-1.91), Other Bumis OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.46-2.10, others OR 1.48 95% CI (1.15-1.91), with Indian as the reference group), age group (18-20 years OR 2.36, 95% CI (1.90-2.94); 20-29 years OR 3.31 , 95% CI 2.82-3.89; 31-40 years OR 2.85 , 95% CI ( 2.47-3.28); 41-50 years OR 1.93, 95% CI (1.69-2.20) ; 51-60 years OR 1.32, 95% CI (1.15-1.51), with 60 year-old and above as the reference group) and residential area (rural OR 1.12 , 95% CI ( 1.03-1.22)) urban as reference.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of smoking among Malaysian males remained high in spite of several population interventions over the past decade. Tobacco will likely remain a primary cause of premature mortality and morbidity in Malaysia. Continuous and more comprehensive anti-smoking policy measures are needed in order to further prevent the increasing prevalence of smoking among Malaysian men, particularly those who are younger, of Malay ethnicity, less educated, reside in rural residential area and with lower socio-economic status.
METHODS: A cross sectional survey was conducted among staff from a tertiary education centre. Subjects were contacted to ascertain their medical history. A total of 320 subjects were interviewed and 195 subjects were eligible and subsequently recruited on a suitable date for taking blood and administration of the questionnaires. The subjects completed questionnaires pertaining to demographic details and coping styles. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength of association between lipid profile and coping styles.
RESULTS: Majority of the subjects were non-academic staff (60.0%), female (67.2%), Malay (91.8%), married (52.3%) and educated until Diploma level (34.9%). Academic staff scored significantly higher mean scores in task-oriented coping styles (Mean = 64.12). Non-academic staff scored significantly higher mean scores in emotion (Mean = 48.05) and avoidance-oriented coping styles (Mean = 57.61). Malay subjects had significantly higher mean scores in emotion (Mean = 47.14) and avoidance-oriented coping styles (Mean = 55.23). Non-malay subjects (Mean = 66.00) attained significantly higher mean scores in task-oriented coping styles. Single/divorced/widowed individuals scored significantly higher mean scores in emotion (Mean = 48.13) and avoidance-oriented coping styles (Mean = 56.86). There was a significant negative correlation between TC (r = -0.162) and LDL (r = -0.168) with avoidance-oriented coping styles (p = 0.023, p = 0.019 respectively).
CONCLUSION: Avoidance-oriented coping style was more likely to engender favourable lipid profile. Hence, assessment of coping styles would certainly assist health care practitioners in predicting subjects who would be at a greater risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.