METHODS: This study assessed access to and use of mobile technology and acceptability of mHealth among 150 HIV-positive MSM and TGW who were prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Malaysia-an emerging economy with rapid telecommunications growth and societal stigma against these groups.
RESULTS: Findings among the 114 MSM and 36 TGW reveal high levels of depression (42%), stigma (2.53/4.00) and risky sexual behavior (30%), and suboptimal ART adherence (22%). On the other hand, the sample had excellent access to smartphones (75.3%) and the internet (78%), and had high acceptance of mHealth especially for those with suboptimal ART adherence.
CONCLUSION: In settings like Malaysia where homosexuality and cross-dressing are socially and legally stigmatized, HIV prevention and treatment strategies delivered using an mHealth platform have the potential to overcome in-person barriers.
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of visual distraction on adults undergoing colonoscopy.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Database from their inception to February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing visual distraction with non-visual distraction were considered for inclusion. The fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to pool the data from individual studies and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to determine the methodology quality.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included four studies (N = 301) for pain level and total procedure time, three studies (N = 181) for satisfaction score, three studies (N = 196) for anxiety level, and four studie (N = 402) for willingness to repeat the procedure. The pooled analysis shown that significantly lower pain levels (SMD, - 0.25; 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.02; P = 0.03), higher satisfaction score with the procedure (SMD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.93; P patient's pain, satisfaction, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Thus, visual stimulation is an effective way to reduce pain during colonoscopy and should be recommended.
METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled noninferiority trial. The noninferiority margin was set at 15%. One hundred sixty-seven patients were recruited and randomized to either the LREF group or the standard diet (SD) group using a 3L PEG preparation regimen.
RESULTS: The LREF group results in comparable satisfactory preparation rating to the standard diet group with a mean BPPS score of 6.87 (SD 1.59) versus 7.14 (SD 1.54) (95% CI[-0.86; 0.32] and p = 0.367). The mean difference (MD) of the BBPS total score between the two groups was -0.27 (95% CI [-0.764 and 0.224]). Equivalence were demonstrated using the two one-sided test (alpha = 5%) with the lower t-value of 2.682 (p = 0.0042) and the upper t-value of -4.493 (p patients undergoing PEG-based bowel preparation. We suggest that a LREF incorporated regimen for bowel preparation can be considered in patients who are unable to sustain prolonged fasting to improve the procedural experience.