MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pure tone audiometry test was conducted on 263 residents of a rural village who were not exposed to noise. The pack-years of smoking were computed from the subjects' smoking history. The association between pack-years and hearing impairment was assessed. The combined effect of smoking and age on hearing impairment was determined based on prevalence rate ratio.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant trend in the number of pack-years of smoking and age as risk factors for hearing impairment. The prevalence rates of hearing impairment for nonsmokers aged 40 years and younger, smokers aged 40 years and younger, nonsmokers older than 40 years of age, and smokers older than 40 years of age were 6.9%, 11.9%, 29.7%, and 51.3%, respectively. The prevalence rate ratio for nonsmokers aged 40 years and younger, smokers aged 40 years and younger, nonsmokers older than 40 years of age, and smokers older than 40 years of age (nonsmokers aged 40 years and younger as a reference group) was 1, 1.7, 4.3, and 7.5, respectively. The prevalence rate ratios showed a multiplicative effect of smoking and age on hearing impairment.
CONCLUSION: Age and smoking are risk factors for hearing impairment. It is clear that smoking and age have multiplicative adverse effects on hearing impairment.
Subjects and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with chronic diseases and pharmacists from three public hospitals in Malaysia. The Revised United States Leeds Attitudes toward Concordance (RUS-LATCon) was used to measure attitudes toward concordance in both patients and pharmacists. Patients also rated their perceived level of involvement in decision making and completed the Decision Self-Efficacy scale. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent t-test were used to determine significant differences between different subgroups on attitudes toward concordance, and multiple linear regression was performed to find the predictors of patients' self-efficacy in decision making.
Results: A total of 389 patients and 93 pharmacists participated in the study. Pharmacists and patients scored M=3.92 (SD=0.37) and M=3.84 (SD=0.46) on the RUS-LATCon scale, respectively. Seven items were found to be significantly different between pharmacists and patients on the subscale level. Patients who felt fully involved in decision making (M=3.94, SD=0.462) scored significantly higher on attitudes toward concordance than those who felt partially involved (M=3.82, SD=0.478) and not involved at all (M=3.68, SD=0.471; p<0.001). Patients had an average score of 76.7% (SD=14.73%) on the Decision Self-Efficacy scale. In multiple linear regression analysis, ethnicity, number of medications taken by patients, patients' perceived level of involvement, and attitudes toward concordance are significant predictors of patients' self-efficacy in decision making (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Patients who felt involved in their consultations had more positive attitudes toward concordance and higher confidence in making an informed decision. Further study is recommended on interventions involving pharmacists in supporting patients' involvement in medication-related decision making.