METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a population based randomized control trial. Women aged 20-65 years in the population that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria were re-called for a repeat smear. There are four different intervention groups; letter, registered letters, short messages services (SMS) and phone calls where 250 subjects were recruited into each group. Samples were generated randomly from the same population in Klang into four different groups. The first group received a recall letter for a repeat smear similar to the one that has been given during the first invitation. The intervention groups were either be given a registered letter, an SMS or a phone call to re-call them. The socio-demographic data of the patients who came for uptake were collected for further analysis. All the groups were followed up after 8 weeks to assess their compliance to the recall.
CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide recommendations about the most effective methods for recall in a population based pap smear screening program on two outcomes: i) patients response; ii) uptake for repeat pap smear.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the survival rate of breast cancer among the women of Malaysia and characteristics of the survivors.
METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on secondary data obtained from the Breast Cancer Registry and medical records of breast cancer patients admitted to Hospital Kuala Lumpur from 2005 to 2009. Survival data were validated with National Birth and Death Registry. Statistical analysis applied logistic regression, the Cox proportional hazard model, the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank test.
RESULTS: A total of 868 women were diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2005 and December 2009, comprising 58%, 25% and 17% Malays, Chinese and Indians, respectively. The overall survival rate was 43.5% (CI 0.573-0.597), with Chinese, Indians and Malays having 5 year survival rates of 48.2% (CI 0.444-0.520), 47.2% (CI 0.432-0.512) and 39.7% (CI 0.373-0.421), respectively (p<0.05). The survival rate was lower as the stages increased, with the late stages were mostly seen among the Malays (46%), followed by Chinese (36%) and Indians (34%). Size of tumor>3.0cm; lymph node involvement, ERPR, and HER 2 status, delayed presentation and involvement of both breasts were among other factors that were associated with poor survival.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival rate of Malaysian women with breast cancer was lower than the western figures with Malays having the lowest because they presented at late stage, after a long duration of symptoms, had larger tumor size, and had more lymph nodes affected. There is an urgent need to conduct studies on why there is delay in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer women in Malaysia.
METHODS: A total of 1598 questionnaires were posted to all female staff, aged 35 years and above. Their knowledge on breast cancer, practice of BSE and detection rate of breast abnormality as confirmed by CBE was determined.
RESULTS: The response rate for this study was 45 percent (714 respondents). The rate of respondents having awareness on breast cancer was 98.7 percent. Eighty four percent (598) of the respondents had performed BSE in their lifetime. However, in only 41% was it regular at the recommended time. Forty seven percent (334) had undergone CBE at least once in a lifetime but only 26% (185) had CBE at least once in the past 3 years, while 23% (165) had had a mammogram. There was a significant relationship between CBE and BSE whereby those who had CBE were twice more likely to do BSE. Nineteen percent (84 respondents) of those who did BSE claimed they had detected a breast lump. Of these, 87% (73) had gone for CBE and all were confirmed as such.
CONCLUSION: BSE is still relevant as a screening tool of breast cancer since those who detect breast lump by BSE will most probably go for further check up. CBE should be done to all women, especially those at highest risk of breast cancer, to encourage and train for BSE.
METHODS: A retrospective study using a multistage sampling technique, at public-funded primary health care clinics was conducted. Antenatal utilisation level was assessed using a modified Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilisation index that measures the timing for initiation of care and observed-to-expected visits ratio. Adequacy of antenatal care content assessed compliance to routine care based on the local guidelines.
RESULTS: Intensive or "adequate-plus" antenatal care utilisation as defined by the modified index was noted in over half of the low-risk women. On the other hand, there were 26% of the high-risk women without the expected intensive utilisation. Primary- or non-educated high-risk women were less likely to have a higher antenatal care utilisation level compared with tertiary educated ones (OR = 0.20, P = 0.003). Half of all women had <80% of the recommended antenatal care content. A higher proportion of high-risk than low-risk women scored <80% of the routine care content (p<0.015). The majority of the additional laboratory tests were performed on high-risk women. Provision of antenatal education showed comparatively poor compliance to guidelines, more than half of the antenatal advice topics assessed were rarely provided to the women. High-risk women were associated with a higher prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Disproportionate utilisation of antenatal care according to risk level of pregnancy indicates the need for better scheduling of care. The risk-oriented approach often results in a tendency to focus on the risk conditions of the women. Training interventions are recommended to improve communication and to help healthcare professionals understand the priorities of the women. Further studies are required to assess the reason for disproportionate utilisation of antenatal care according to risk level and how delivery of antenatal advice can be improved, reviewing both user and provider perspectives.