DESIGN: This qualitative study employed an interpretive descriptive approach. Two trained researchers conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) using a semi-structured topic guide, which was developed based on literature review and behavioural theories. All IDIs and FGDs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers analysed the data independently using a thematic approach.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Men working in a banking institution in Kuala Lumpur were recruited to the study. They were purposively sampled according to their ethnicity, job position, age and screening status in order to achieve maximal variation.
RESULTS: Eight IDIs and five FGDs were conducted (n=31) and six themes emerged from the analysis. (1) Young men did not consider screening as part of prevention and had low risk perception. (2) The younger generation was more receptive to health screening due to their exposure to health information through the internet. (3) Health screening was not a priority in young men except for those who were married. (4) Young men had limited income and would rather invest in health insurance than screening. (5) Young men tended to follow doctors' advice when it comes to screening and preferred doctors of the same gender and ethnicity. (6) Medical overuse was also raised where young men wanted more screening tests while doctors tended to promote unnecessary screening tests to them.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified important factors that influenced young men's screening behaviour. Health authorities should address young men's misperceptions, promote the importance of early detection and develop a reasonable health screening strategy for them. Appropriate measures must be put in place to reduce low value screening practices.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A sample of 1462 school-children aged between 9 and 15 years were randomly selected from all schools in Kuala Langat, a rural district in Malaysia. Those with recurrent abdominal pain, defined according to Apley's criteria, were recruited and divided into consulters and non-consulters. A consulter was defined as a child who had sought the help of a medical practitioner at least once in the past year for recurrent abdominal pain. A detailed clinical, social and family history was obtained in all recruited children.
RESULTS: A total of 161 children were recruited: 78 (48.4%) consulters, 83 (51.6%) non-consulters. Of the consulters, 40 were boys, 38 were girls (male:female ratio = 1.1:1). The two sexes did not show a significant difference in prevalence of consulters [p=0.189). Of the ethnic groups, only Indians had a significantly higher likelihood to consult a doctor (Indians, p=0.006; Malays, p=0.742; Chinese, p=0.050]. Younger children (under 12 years) had a significantly higher chance of having been brought to see a medical practitioner (p=0.014). Children in whom age of onset of abdominal pain was below ten years were also more likely to have been seen by a doctor (p=0.012). Children who had consulted a doctor were more likely to be missing school because of abdominal pain (p<0.001). Pain severity was not a significant factor (p=0.429). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the only variable that remained significantly associated with health-care consultation was school absence (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Children who saw their doctors for recurrent abdominal pain were also more likely to be those who missed school on account of abdominal pain. Following multiple regression analysis, other factors were no longer significant.