METHODS: Dentists were recruited through two main dental associations in Malaysia and attended a 1-day training session on recognizing abnormalities within the oral cavity. Following the training, the dentists conducted screening and provided risk habits cessation advice at their respective clinics for 6 months. The impact of the program was evaluated by determining the number of patients who were screened and/or provided with risk habits cessation advice.
RESULTS: Twenty-six dentists took part in the program and conducted opportunistic screening on a total of 2603 individuals. On average, they screened about 23.0% of their patients and 5.1% were given risk habits cessation advice. Notably, dentists who had lower patient load were more likely to conduct opportunistic screening.
CONCLUSIONS: While the participating private dentists state that they have a role in performing opportunistic screening and providing risk habits cessation advice, these activities are still not a priority area in the private clinics, strongly suggesting that strategies to motivate dentists in this setting are urgently needed.
METHODS: TW (N = 199) in Greater Kuala Lumpur completed a survey on healthcare access and utilization, including HIV testing history. Bivariate logistic regression and penalized multivariate logistic regression were used to explore correlates of HIV testing in the last 12 months.
RESULTS: Overall, 41.7% of TW reported having ever been tested for HIV. Among participants who were HIV negative or not sure of their HIV status (n = 187), only 18.7% (n = 35) had been tested for HIV in the last 12 months. The multivariate analysis indicated that having a primary care provider (PCP), being 26-40 years of age, and having higher mental health functioning were positively associated with recent HIV testing. Active amphetamine use and previous depression diagnosis were also associated with recent HIV testing.
CONCLUSION: HIV testing is the first step in linking individuals to prevention and treatment interventions. Our findings suggest that having a PCP can improve engagement in HIV testing. Moreover, PCPs can serve as a valuable link to HIV treatment and prevention services. Current interventions that target social and behavioral risk factors for HIV, on their own, may be insufficient at engaging all HIV-vulnerable TW.
METHODS: From October 2011 to June 2015, 1,778 asymptomatic women, aged 40-74 years, underwent subsidised mammographic screening. All patients had a clinical breast examination before mammographic screening, and women with mammographic abnormalities were referred to a surgeon. The cancer detection rate and variables associated with a recommendation for adjunct ultrasonography were determined.
RESULTS: The mean age for screening was 50.8 years and seven cancers (0.39%) were detected. The detection rate was 0.64% in women aged 50 years and above, and 0.12% in women below 50 years old. Adjunct ultrasonography was recommended in 30.7% of women, and was significantly associated with age, menopausal status, mammographic density and radiologist's experience. The main reasons cited for recommendation of an adjunct ultrasound was dense breasts and mammographic abnormalities.
DISCUSSION: The cancer detection rate is similar to population-based screening mammography programmes in high-income Asian countries. Unlike population-based screening programmes in Caucasian populations where the adjunct ultrasonography rate is 2-4%, we report that 3 out of 10 women attending screening mammography were recommended for adjunct ultrasonography. This could be because Asian women attending screening are likely premenopausal and hence have denser breasts. Radiologists who reported more than 360 mammograms were more confident in reporting a mammogram as normal without adjunct ultrasonography compared to those who reported less than 180 mammograms.
CONCLUSION: Our subsidised opportunistic mammographic screening programme is able to provide equivalent cancer detection rates but the high recall for adjunct ultrasonography would make screening less cost-effective.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additional articles were located through cross-checking of the references list and bibliography citations of the included studies and previous review papers. We included intervention studies with controlled or baseline comparison groups that were conducted in primary care practices or the community, targeted at adult populations (randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials with controlled groups and pre- and post-intervention studies). The interventions were targeted either at individuals, communities, health care professionals or the health-care system. The main outcome of interest was the relative risk (RR) of screening uptake rates due to the intervention.
RESULTS: We included 21 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias for randomization was low to medium in the randomized controlled trials, except for one, and high in the non-randomized trials. Two analyses were performed; optimistic (using the highest effect sizes) and pessimistic (using the lowest effect sizes). Overall, interventions were shown to increase the uptake of screening for CVD risk factors (RR 1.443; 95% CI 1.264 to 1.648 for pessimistic analysis and RR 1.680; 95% CI 1.420 to 1.988 for optimistic analysis). Effective interventions that increased screening participation included: use of physician reminders (RR ranged between 1.392; 95% CI 1.192 to 1.625, and 1.471; 95% CI 1.304 to 1.660), use of dedicated personnel (RR ranged between 1.510; 95% CI 1.014 to 2.247, and 2.536; 95% CI 1.297 to 4.960) and provision of financial incentives for screening (RR 1.462; 95% CI 1.068 to 2.000). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect of CVD risk factors screening uptake was not associated with study design, types of population nor types of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions using physician reminders, using dedicated personnel to deliver screening, and provision of financial incentives were found to be effective in increasing CVD risk factors screening uptake.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility and usability of ScreenMen.
METHODS: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Healthy men working in a banking institution were recruited to participate in this study. They were purposively sampled according to job position, age, education level, and screening status. Men were asked to use ScreenMen independently while the screen activities were being recorded. Once completed, retrospective think aloud with playback was conducted with men to obtain their feedback. They were asked to answer the System Usability Scale (SUS). Intention to undergo screening pre- and postintervention was also measured. Qualitative data were analyzed using a framework approach followed by thematic analysis. For quantitative data, the mean SUS score was calculated and change in intention to screening was analyzed using McNemar test.
RESULTS: In total, 24 men participated in this study. On the basis of the qualitative data, men found ScreenMen useful as they could learn more about their health risks and screening. They found ScreenMen convenient to use, which might trigger men to undergo screening. In terms of usability, men thought that ScreenMen was user-friendly and easy to understand. The key revision done on utility was the addition of a reminder function, whereas for usability, the revisions done were in terms of attracting and gaining users' trust, improving learnability, and making ScreenMen usable to all types of users. To attract men to use it, ScreenMen was introduced to users in terms of improving health instead of going for screening. Another important revision made was emphasizing the screening tests the users do not need, instead of just informing them about the screening tests they need. A Quick Assessment Mode was also added for users with limited attention span. The quantitative data showed that 8 out of 23 men (35%) planned to attend screening earlier than intended after using the ScreenMen. Furthermore, 4 out of 12 (33%) men who were in the precontemplation stage changed to either contemplation or preparation stage after using ScreenMen with P=.13. In terms of usability, the mean SUS score of 76.4 (SD 7.72) indicated that ScreenMen had good usability.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that ScreenMen was acceptable to men in terms of its utility and usability. The preliminary data suggested that ScreenMen might increase men's intention to undergo screening. This paper also presented key lessons learned from the beta testing, which is useful for public health experts and researchers when developing a user-centered mobile Web app.
METHODS: Blood lead level, anemia, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, tuberculosis infection or disease, and Strongyloides seropositivity data were available for 8148 refugee children (aged < 19 years) from Bhutan, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Somalia.
RESULTS: We identified distinct health profiles for each country of origin, as well as for Burmese children who arrived in the United States from Thailand compared with Burmese children who arrived from Malaysia. Hepatitis B was more prevalent among male children than female children and among children aged 5 years and older. The odds of HBV, tuberculosis, and Strongyloides decreased over the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Medical screening remains an important part of health care for newly arrived refugee children in the United States, and disease risk varies by population.