Methods: In this quantitative research 87 medical students of 4th year from three public and five private medical colleges and universities participated. A laparoscopy operation was selected in consultation with senior medical consultants for this experiment. The experimental material was arranged in virtual reality, video and text based learning. At completion of each of which, participants completed a questionnaire about learning motivation and learning competency through the different mediums.
Results: Statistical t-test was selected for the analysis of this study. By comparing the mean values of virtual reality, video, and text based learning methodologies in medical academics; result of virtual reality is at top of others. All performed model are statistically significant (P=0.000) and results can be applied at all population.
Conclusion: Through this research, we contribute to medical students learning methodologies. In medical studies, both theoretical and practical expertise has a vital role, while repetition of hands-on practice can improve young doctors' professional competency. Virtual reality was found best for medical students in both learning motivation and learning competency. Medical students and educationist may select virtual reality as new learning methodology for curriculum learning.
METHODS: Using qualitative study method, a phone interview was conducted with 16 patients to elicit their views on the reasons for failure to attend the colonoscopy procedure following a positive stool test. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated before proceeded with the data analysis. Content analysis was made on the translated interview, followed by systematic classification of data by major themes.
RESULTS: Reasons for nonattendance were categorized under five main themes; unnecessary test, fear of the procedure, logistic obstacles (subthemes; time constraint, transportation problem), social influences, and having other health priority. Lacking in information about the procedure during the referral process was identified to cause misperception and unnecessary worry towards colonoscopy. Fear of the procedure was commonly cited by female respondents while logistic issues pertaining to time constraint were raised by working respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: More effective communication between patients and health care providers are warranted to avoid misconception regarding colonoscopy procedure. Support from primary care doctors, customer-friendly appointment system, use of educational aids and better involvement from family members were among the strategies to increase colonoscopy compliance.
Aims and Objective: To identify an ideal systolic blood pressure range based on optimal survival among ESRD patients on dialysis.
Method: A systematic search for clinical trials assessing the impact of different systolic blood pressure range on mortality among ESRD patients on hemodialysis was conducted through PubMed, EBSCOhost, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Scopus. All randomized control trials (RCTs) involving ESRD patients on hemodialysis with primary or secondary outcome of assessing the impact different systolic blood pressure range (140 mm Hg) on all-cause mortality were included. The quality of reporting of the included studies was evaluated using the Jadad scale. Two researchers independently conducted eligibility assessment. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consultation with a third researcher when needed. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
Results: A total of 1,787 research articles were identified during the initial search, after which six RCTs met our inclusion criteria. According to the Jadad scale, all six RCTs scored 3 points each for quality of reporting. Four RCTs employed pharmacological intervention while two RCTs assessed non-pharmacological intervention. Of the six RCTs, two studies were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of <140 mm Hg at the end of trial with a RR for reduction in mortality of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.3-1.07; P = 0.08). Four RCTs were able to achieve a systolic blood pressure of >140 mm Hg at the end of trial, with the RR for reduction of mortality of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.96; P = 0.003). Overall, pooled estimates of the six RCTs suggested the reduction in systolic blood pressure statistically reduce all cause of mortality (RR, 0.69%; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90; P = 0.006) among ESRD patients on hemodialysis.
Conclusion: Though not statically significant, the current study identifies <140 mm Hg as a promising blood pressure range for optimum survival among ESRD patients on hemodialysis. However, further studies are required to establish an ideal blood pressure range among hemodialysis patients.
Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42019121102).
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 256 conveniently selected elderly Malaysians who were residing in the states of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. A pre-validated interview-administered questionnaire was used to gather information. Data was entered into PASW version 18 and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 256 questionnaires were included in the study. A response rate of 64% was achieved. Out of 256 respondents, 92 (35.9%) were male while 164 (64.1%) were female. More than half of the respondents (n = 141; 55.1%) agreed that CAM is more effective than allopathic medicine. Chinese respondents showed strong belief in the effectiveness of CAM. In terms of safety of CAM, close to three quarters of respondents (n = 178; 69.5%) believed that CAM is safer than allopathic medicine. A large majority of respondents agreed that CAM has less side effects compared to allopathic medicine (n = 201; 78.5%) and also agreed that CAM is good to maintain overall health and wellbeing (n = 212; 82.8%). A majority of the respondents expressed that they use CAM because allopathic medicine is less effective (n = 113; 44.1%).
CONCLUSION: The current study reflects the reasons of using CAM among lay public from different ethnicities. There are no reports of adverse effects related to CAM use. Future approaches should be intended for awareness campaigns for consumers, highlighting safety profile of CAM and as well as forbidding their use without the consultation of healthcare professional.
METHODS: An online survey in English, Japanese, Chinese and Spanish was disseminated between May and November 2016 via 27 international professional bodies to >30 clinical professions chosen a priori to represent occupations involved in the management of neonatal ankyloglossia.
RESULTS: A total of 1721 responses came from nursing (51%), medical (40%), dental (6%) and allied health (4%) clinicians. Nurses (40%) and allied health (34%) professionals were more likely than doctors (8%) to consider ankyloglossia as important for lactation problems, as were western (83%) compared to Asian (52%) clinicians. Referrals to clinicians for ankyloglossia management originated mainly from parents (38%). Interprofessional referrals were not clearly defined. Frenectomies were most likely to be performed by surgeons (65%) and dentists (35%), who were also less likely to be involved in lactation support. Clinicians performing frenectomies were more likely to consider analgesia as important compared to those not performing frenectomies.
CONCLUSION: The diagnosis and treatment of ankyloglossia vary considerably around the world and between professions. Efforts to standardise management are required.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among caregivers and patients attending geriatric outpatient services in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The survey measured the availability of equipment for virtual consultations, prior knowledge and experience of telemedicine, and willingness to consult geriatricians through virtual technology, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale.
RESULTS: A total of 197 caregivers and 42 older patients with a mean age of 54.28 (±13.22) and 75.62 (±7.32) years, respectively, completed the survey. One hundred and fifty-six (79.2%) of the caregivers were adult children accompanying patients. The mean UTAUT score was 65.97 (±13.71) out of 90, with 66.64 (±13.25) for caregivers and 62.79 (±15.44) for older adults, suggesting a high acceptance of adopting virtual consultations in lieu of face-to-face care. The independent predictors of acceptance of virtual consultation were : possession of an electronic device capable of video-communication, living with someone, living in a care home, weekly online banking usage, and perceived familiarity with virtual platforms.
CONCLUSION: Caregivers and patients indicated a high level of acceptance of virtual medical consultations, which is likely facilitated by caregivers such as adult children or spouses at home or staff in care homes. To minimize the transmission of COVID-19 in a highly vulnerable group, virtual consultations are an acceptable alternative to face-to-face consultations for older people and their caregivers in our setting.
METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".
CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.
METHODS: This approach included the use of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) as a means of screening to identify individuals at moderate (score of 5-7) to high risk (score of 8 +) alcohol use, raising awareness, and investigating the potential utility of brief advice and referrals as a means of reducing risk.
RESULTS: Of the 54,187 participants, 43.0% reported engaging in moderate-risk alcohol consumption, with 22.1% reporting high-risk alcohol consumption. Resistance to brief advice was observed to increase with higher AUDIT-C scores. Similarly, participants engaging in high-risk alcohol consumption were resistant to accepting treatment referrals, with fewer than 10% open to receiving a referral.
CONCLUSIONS: While men were most likely to report patterns of high-risk alcohol consumption, they were more resistant to accepting referrals. Additionally, participants who were willing to receive brief advice were often resistant to taking active steps to alter their alcohol use. This study highlights the need to consider how to prevent harmful patterns of alcohol use effectively and holistically, especially in low socioeconomic settings through primary health care and community services.
METHODS: A systematic search with Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google scholar, and PubMed was conducted. Studies conducted in patients with STEMI presented to non PCI-capable settings and compared fibrinolytic injection with no injection before referring patients to PCI-capable settings were included. The primary outcome was the composite outcomes of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 30 days. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model.
RESULTS: Of 912 articles, three RCTs and three non-RCTs were included. Based on RCTs, fibrinolytic injection before the referral has failed to decrease MACEs compared to non-fibrinolytic injection [relative risk (RR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89-1.57, p = 0.237]. Fibrinolytic injection has also failed to decrease mortality, re-infarction, and ischemic stroke. On the other hand, fibrinolytic injection was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: In non PCI-capable settings, fibrinolytic injection before referring patients with STEMI to PCI-capable settings has no clinical benefit but could increase risk of major bleeding. Clinicians might more carefully consider whether fibrinolytic injection should be used in patients with STEMI before the referral.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study, using a convenience sampling technique, was conducted from 13 September, 2021 to 28 November, 2021. We designed a 45-item VC KAP questionnaire. This was distributed to outpatient users attending cardiovascular, dermatology, geriatrics, haematology, endocrine, respiratory, gastroenterology, rheumatology, or neurology clinics at the University Malaya Medical Centre. It was completed during face-to-face, online, or telephone interviews. The data were analysed using SPSS version 24.0. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the demographic factors associated with KAP. Correlation between KAP domains was determined using Spearman's rho (r). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 366 questionnaires were completed. Knowledge (awareness), attitude (acceptability), and practice (exposure) were considered good in 69.7%, 80.9%, and 24.6% of participants, respectively. There were no significant relationships between age, gender, ethnicity, and duration of hospital attendance (years) with knowledge (awareness), attitude (acceptability), and practice (exposure). A moderate positive correlation was seen between knowledge (awareness) and attitude (acceptability) (Attitude total [Atotal]) (r = 0.48, p<0.001), with no significant correlation between knowledge (awareness) and practice (exposure) (r = 0.04, p = 0.45), and attitude (acceptability) (Atotal) and practice (r = 0.01, p = 0.82).
CONCLUSION: Overall, outpatient clinic users had good knowledge (awareness) of and were receptive towards VC but had poor practice (exposure). More opportunities for VC use in healthcare can increase exposure and subsequent utilisation. Interventions to increase the effectiveness of VC use should be explored in future studies.