Materials and Methods: Content and face validity of the KAP-ARP were determined by four experts and 20 respondents, respectively. A questionnaire with 36 items, consisting of 16 Knowledge, 9 Attitude, and 11 Perception items, was distributed to 177 respondents. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed for construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire.
Results: EFA constructed 13 Knowledge, 8 Attitude, and 8 Perception items. The final KAP-ARP questionnaire is reliable based on its internal consistency reliability (Knowledge: α = 0.78; Attitude: α = 0.63; Perception: α = 0.70).
Conclusion: A valid and reliable questionnaire that is useful for measuring KAP-ARP among the general population has been developed.
METHODS: We sourced articles from Scopus, Ovid and PubMed databases for journal publications related to post-mortem diagnostic imaging. We highlight the most relevant full articles in English that explain the type of modality that was utilised and the added value it provided for diagnosing the cause of death.
RESULTS: Minimally invasive autopsies assisted by imaging modalities added a great benefit to forensic medicine, and supported conventional autopsy. In particular the role of post mortem computed tomography (PMCT), post mortem computed tomography angiography (PMMR) and positron emission tomography computed tomography (PMCTA) that have incremental benefits in diagnosing traumatic death, fractures, tissue injuries, as well as the assessment of body height or weight for corpse identification.
CONCLUSION: PMCT and PMMR, with particular emphasis on PMCTA, can provide higher accuracy than the other modalities. They can be regarded as indispensable methods that should be applied to the routine autopsy protocol, thus improving the findings and accuracy of diagnosing the cause of death.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 107 cadavers that had undergone conventional autopsy and PMCT. We made 5 measurements from the PMCT that included cervical length (CL), thoracic length (TL), lumbosacral length (LS), total column length of the spine, excluding the sacrum and coccyx (TCL), and ellipse line measurement of the whole spine, excluding the sacrum and coccyx (EL). We compared these anthropometric PMCT measurements with AL and correlated them using linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: The results showed a significant linear relationship existed between TL and LS with AL, which was higher in comparison with the other parameters than the rest of the spine parameters. The linear regression formula derived was: 48.163 + 2.458 (TL) + 2.246 (LS).
CONCLUSIONS: The linear regression formula derived from PMCT spine length parameters particularly thoracic and lumbar spine gave a finer correlation with autopsy body length and can be used for accurate estimation of cadaveric height. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever linear regression formula for cadaveric height assessment using only post mortem CT spine length measurements.
METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.
RESULTS: The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during AGPs, and to examine the association between risk severity and the number of AGPs performed per day. The efficacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) was also assessed.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional cohort study was based on an online questionnaire form completed by 629 general and specialized dentists between January 1 and February 28, 2021. The collected data referred to the sources of COVID-19 infection, the type of PPE used and the number of AGPs performed each day by dental healthcare professionals (DHCPs). For each question, the absolute numbers of responses as well as percentages were calculated.
RESULTS: Among the 629 DHCPs, 113 (17.97%) contracted COVID-19. The risk of contracting COVID-19 during AGPs was the same as in the case of non-AGPs, and the infection risk was not associated with the number of AGPs performed per day. The efficacy of a surgical mask with a face shield/eye goggles was higher in comparison with all other types of PPE. Differences in the infection risk across the different types of PPE used were statistically significant (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of COVID-19 transmission during AGPs is the same as in the case of non-AGPs. Thus, restrictions on the performance of elective AGPs should be lifted. On the other hand, the best protection during AGPs is provided by a surgical mask with a face shield/eye goggles.