Objective: To provide an update on the current understanding, evaluation, and management of penile warts.
Methods: A PubMed search was completed in Clinical Queries using the key terms 'penile warts' and 'genital warts'. The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews.
Results: Penile warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), notably HPV-6 and HPV-11. Penile warts typically present as asymptomatic papules or plaques. Lesions may be filiform, exophytic, papillomatous, verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cerebriform, fungating, or cauliflower-like. Approximately one-third of penile warts regress without treatment and the average duration prior to resolution is approximately 9 months. Active treatment is preferable to watchful observation to speed up clearance of the lesions and to assuage fears of transmission and autoinoculation. Patient-administered therapies include podofilox (0.5%) solution or gel, imiquimod 3.75 or 5% cream, and sinecatechins (polypheron E) 15% ointment. Clinician-administered therapies include podophyllin, cryotherapy, bichloroacetic or trichloroacetic acid, oral cimetidine, surgical excision, electrocautery, and carbon dioxide laser therapy. Patients who do not respond to first-line treatments may respond to other therapies or a combination of treatment modalities. Second-line therapies include topical/intralesional/intravenous cidofovir, topical 5-fluorouracil, and topical ingenol mebutate.
Conclusion: No single treatment has been shown to be consistently superior to other treatment modalities. The choice of the treatment method should depend on the physician's comfort level with the various treatment options, the patient's preference and tolerability of treatment, and the number and severity of lesions. The comparative efficacy, ease of administration, adverse effects, cost, and availability of the treatment modality should also be taken into consideration.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy towards childhood immunisation amongst urban pregnant mothers and the associated socio-demographic factors.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1081 women who received antenatal care at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur. Vaccine hesitancy was assessed using the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Survey in both English and validated Malay versions. The sociodemographic data of the mothers and their partners, source of vaccine information and reasons for hesitancy were analysed.
RESULTS: Eighty-six (8.0%) pregnant mothers were vaccine hesitant. Ethnicity, religion, number of children, educational level and employment status were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. Multivariable analysis showed that a low level of education was the most significant risk factor (p Fear of adverse side effects of vaccines was the predominant concern for all participants (58%) whilst fear of vaccination pain, preference for alternative medicine and lack of trust in the pharmaceutical industry were significant reasons given by the vaccine hesitant group. Partners' ethnicity, a low educational level and a low income were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy amongst pregnant mothers.
CONCLUSION: Prevalence of vaccine hesitancy amongst urban Malaysian pregnant women was relatively low. Muslim mothers are less likely to be vaccine hesitant. Educational level of mothers and their partners are the common determinant of vaccine hesitancy amongst antenatal mothers.
Methods: A community-based participatory research method was utilized. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Malaysian sign language (BIM) with a total of 10 DHH individuals. Respondents were recruited using purposive sampling. Video-recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic approach.
Results: Two themes emerged: (I) challenges and scepticism of the healthcare system; and (II) features of the mHealth app. Respondents expressed fears and concerns about accessing healthcare services, and stressed on the need for sign language interpreters. There were also concerns about data privacy and security. With regard to app features, the majority preferred videos instead of text to convey information about their disease and medication, due to their lower literacy levels.
Conclusions: For an mHealth app to be effective, app designers must ensure the app is individualised according to the cultural and linguistic diversity of the target audience. Pharmacists should also educate patients on the potential benefits of the app in terms of assisting patients with their medicine-taking.