METHODS: Several methods were implemented. Firstly, a modified Delphi process for the contextualisation of learning outcomes was implemented with a purposefully sampled expert group of Malaysian Family Medicine Specialists. Secondly a small group review for supporting materials was undertaken. Finally, qualitative data in relation to the family medicine specialists' experiences of the processes was collected via online questionnaire and analysed via template analysis. Descriptive statistics were used.
RESULTS: Learning outcomes were reviewed over three rounds; 95.9% (1691/1763) of the learning outcomes were accepted without modification, with the remainder requiring additions, modifications, or deletions. Supporting materials were extensively altered by the expert group. Template analysis showed that Family Medicine Specialists related positively to their involvement in the process, commenting on the amount of similarity in the medical curriculum whilst recognising differences in disease profiles and cultural approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: Learning outcomes and associated material were transferable between "home" and "host" institution. Where differences were discovered this novel approach places "host" practitioners' experiences and knowledge central to the adaptation process, thereby rendering a fit for purpose curriculum. Host satisfaction with the outcome of the processes, as well as ancillary benefits were clearly identified.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities and quality of life among women with non-metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 16 March 2021. We also scanned the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 randomised controlled trials comprising 7998 participants. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. The updated review included 7998 randomised women; the original review included 3940 women. A wide range of interventions was evaluated. Most interventions were cognitive- or mindfulness-based, supportive-expressive, and educational. The interventions were mainly delivered face-to-face (56 studies) and in groups (50 studies) rather than individually (10 studies). Most intervention sessions were delivered on a weekly basis with an average duration of 14 hours. Follow-up time ranged from two weeks to 24 months. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated that the intervention may reduce depression (SMD -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.02; P = 0.04; 27 studies, 3321 participants, I2 = 91%, low-certainty evidence); anxiety (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.17; P = 0.0009; 22 studies, 2702 participants, I2 = 89%, low-certainty evidence); mood disturbance in the intervention group (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.009; 13 studies, 2276 participants, I2 = 56%, low-certainty evidence); and stress (SMD -0.34, 95% (CI) -0.55 to -0.12; P = 0.002; 8 studies, 564 participants, I2 = 31%, low-certainty evidence). The intervention is likely to improve quality of life in the intervention group (SMD 0.78, 95% (CI) 0.32 to 1.24; P = 0.0008; 20 studies, 1747 participants, I2 = 95%, low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, psychological intervention may have produced favourable effects on psychological outcomes, in particular depression, anxiety, mood disturbance and stress. There was also an improvement in quality of life in the psychological intervention group compared to control group. Overall, there was substantial variation across the studies in the range of psychological interventions used, control conditions, measures of the same outcome and timing of follow-up.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional validation study among 159 T2DM patients attending a public primary care clinic in Selangor. The DMOQ English version underwent adaptation, translation, face validation and field testing to produce the Malay version. Psychometric analysis was performed using Exploratory Factor Analysis, internal consistency and testretest reliability.
RESULTS: The DMOQ domains were conceptually equivalent between English and Malay language. A total of 13 items and two domains were removed during the validation process (three items during the content validation, three items due to poor factor loadings, five items as they loaded onto two domains which were not interpretable, one item as it did not fit conceptually into the factor it loaded onto and one openended question as it did not fit into the retained domains). Therefore, the final DMOQ Malay version consisted of 21- items within five domains. The Cronbach alpha was 0.714 and the intraclass-correlation coefficient was 0.868.
CONCLUSION: The DMOQ Malay version is a valid and reliable tool which is consistent over time. It can be used to examine the perception of T2DM patients towards the risk of their offspring developing diabetes and possibility of intervention in Malay-speaking patients.