MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide on 40 informants (employed multiethnic survivors). Survivors were stratified into three groups for successfully RTW, and another three groups of survivors who were unable to return to work. Each of the three groups was ethnically homogeneous. Thematic analysis using a constant comparative approach was aided by in vivo software.
RESULTS: Participants shared numerous barriers and facilitators which directly or interactively affect RTW. Key barriers were physical-psychological after-effects of treatment, fear of potential environment hazards, high physical job demand, intrusive negative thoughts and overprotective family. Key facilitators were social support, employer support, and regard for financial independence. Across ethnic groups, the main facilitators were financial-independence (for Chinese), and socialisation opportunity (for Malay). A key barrier was after-effects of treatment, expressed across all ethnic groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Numerous barriers were identified in the non-RTW survivors. Health professionals and especially occupational therapists should be consulted to assist the increasing survivors by providing occupational rehabilitation to enhance RTW amongst employed survivors. Future research to identify prognostic factors can guide clinical efforts to restore cancer survivors to their desired level/type of occupational functioning for productivity and wellbeing.
METHODS: This hospital-based prospective cohort study will comprise patients with breast cancer (18 years and above), managed in the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC). We aim to recruit 1000 cancer survivors over a 6-year period. Data collection will occur at baseline (within 3 months of diagnosis), 6 months, and 1, 3 and 5 years following diagnosis. The primary outcomes are disease-free survival and overall survival, and secondary outcome is QoL. Factors measured are demographic and socioeconomic factors, lifestyle factors (eg, dietary intake, physical activity), anthropometry measurements (eg, height, weight, waist, hip circumference, body fat analysis), psychosocial aspects, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the UMMC Ethical Committee in January 2012. All participants are required to provide written informed consent. The findings from our cohort study will be disseminated via scientific publication as well as presentation to stakeholders including the patients, clinicians, the public and policymakers, via appropriate avenues.
OBJECTIVE: Thus, this research was conducted to evaluate the colorectal cancer screening program in the districts to provide insights intop its efficacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted using data on the colorectal cancer screening program in 2013 involving Kota Setar and Kuala Muda districts in Malaysia. We determined the response rate of immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT), colonoscopy compliance, and detection rates of neoplasia and carcinoma. We also compared the response of FOBT by demographic background.
RESULTS: The response rate of FOBT for first iFOBT screening was 94.7% while the second iFOBT screening was 90.7%. Participants from Kuala Muda district were 27 times more likely to default while Indians had a 3 times higher risk of default compared to Malays. The colonoscopy compliance was suboptimal among those with positive iFOBT. The most common finding from colonoscopy was hemorrhoids, followed by tubular adenoma. Detection rate of carcinoma and neoplasia for our program was 1.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the response rate of iFOBT was encouraging but the colonoscopy compliance was suboptimal which led to a considerably low detection rate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 93 patients recruited from University Malaya and Universiti Kebangsaan Medical Centers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia using a self-administered method. Tools included QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29 and Karnofsky Performance Scales (KPS). Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, test-retest correlations, multi-traits scaling and known-groups comparisons. A p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: The internal consistency coefficients for body image, urinary frequency, blood and mucus and stool frequency scales were acceptable (Cronbach's alpha α ≥ 0.65). However, the coefficients were low for the blood and mucus and stool frequency scales in patients with a stoma bag (α = 0.46). Test-retest correlation coefficients were moderate to high (range: r = 0.51 to 1.00) for most of the scales except anxiety, urinary frequency, buttock pain, hair loss, stoma care related problems, and dyspareunia (r ≤ 0.49). Convergent and discriminant validities were achieved in all scales. Patients with a stoma reported significantly higher symptoms of blood and mucus in the stool, flatulence, faecal incontinence, sore skin, and embarrassment due to the frequent need to change the stoma bag (p < 0.05) compared to patients without stoma. None of the scales distinguished between patients based on the KPS scores. There were no overlaps between scales in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 (r < 0.40).
CONCLUSIONS: the BM version of the QLQ-CR29 indicated acceptable psychometric properties in most of the scales similar to original validation study. This questionnaire could be used to complement the QLQ-C30 in assessing HRQOL among BM speaking population with colorectal cancer.