METHODS: The survey-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from January to July 2018 in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Pakistan, and comprised graduates of either gender aged at least 35 years with access to internet and means of use, and with no current diagnosed medical condition. The self-reporting Cyberchondria Severity Scale was used data-collection along with a demographic sheet. SPSS 21 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 150 subjects, 90(60%) were men and 60(40%) were women. A total of 40(26.6%) subjects had low level of cyberchondria, while 35(23.3%) experienced a higher level of it. Mean scores of men on total CSS were slightly higher than those of women (p>0.05). Men also scored higher on compulsion, distress, excessiveness and reassurance subsclaes (p>0.05 each), whereas women scored slightly higherthan men on 'mistrust of medical profession' subscale (p>0.05). No significant gender differences werefound on cyberchondria and its subscales (p>0.05 each).
CONCLUSIONS: Doctors / health professionals may benefit from the findings by focussing on their patients who use internet as a major source of medical information.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the web-based application, WESIHAT 2.0©, for improving cognitive function, physical fitness, biochemical indices, and psychosocial variables among older adults in Klang Valley, Malaysia. The cost analysis of WESIHAT 2.0© was also determined.
METHOD: The study utilized a two-arm randomized controlled trial with 25 subjects in each of the intervention and control groups. The participants chosen for the study included those who were 60 years and above with at least secondary education and had internet access using a computer at home. The intervention group was exposed to the website (30 minutes per day, 4 days per week) for six months, while the control group was given health education pamphlets. Activity-Based Costing method was used to determine the cost saved using WESIHAT 2.0© as compared to using the pamphlet.
RESULTS: Significant intervention effects were observed for self-perception of disability and informational support scores. WESIHAT 2.0© was able to save costs in improving the self-perception of disability score and the informational support score at MYR 6.92 and MYR 13.52, respectively, compared to the conventional method.
CONCLUSION: WESIHAT 2.0© was able to save costs in improving the self-perceived disability and informational support scores for the intervention group.
METHOD: A single-blind cluster randomized controlled trial will conduct at six districts in Selangor. Randomly selected respondents who fulfilled the inclusion criteria will be invited to participate in the study. Health education module based on Health Believed Theory will be delivered via health talks and videos coordinated by liaison officers. Data at three-time points at baseline, immediate, and 3 months post-intervention will be collected. A validated questionnaire will assess participants' background characteristics, knowledge, skill, and preparedness on disaster preparedness and perception towards disaster. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be applied for data analysis using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25. Longitudinal correlated data on knowledge, skills, preparedness, and perception score at baseline, immediate post-intervention, and 6 months post-intervention will be analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE).
DISCUSSION: It is expected that knowledge, skills, preparedness, and flood disaster perception score are more significant in the intervention group than the control group, indicating the Health Education Based Intervention (HEBI).
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trial TCTR20200202002 .
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of BrAware Apps in increasing the knowledge of BC risk factors, awareness of warning signs and confidence in breast self-examination (BSE) among women in northeast peninsular Malaysia.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental pre and post-test research design were conducted with 41 women participants in Kelantan, Malaysia, before and after using the BrAware apps. Participants were given an online, adapted Breast Cancer Awareness Measure questionnaire. Post-test was 2 months after using the BrAware apps. Comparison using paired T-tests were conducted to evaluate the change in knowledge of risk factors, warning signs awareness and confidence level for BSE.
RESULTS: The mean age of women was 39.71(SD = 8.80). The participants' mean knowledge score of BC warning signs differs before using BrAware (mean 70.62, SD 11.74) and after using the BrAware app (mean 79.83, SD 10.15) at the <0.001 level of significance.
CONCLUSIONS: The BrAware mobile app had a positive effect in increasing the women's knowledge of risk factors of BC, warning signs awareness and confidence level for BSE. It can be concluded that the mobile app may be an adjunct in educating women on BC.
RESULT: The results showed no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the respondents' characteristics (socio-demographic and occupational/officerelated ergonomic factors) and the outcome variables KAP towards WSC at baseline. For practices towards WSC, both intervention (β 6.8, 95%CI 4.85, 8.72) and time (β 6.2, 95%CI 4.49, 7.94) significantly improved the respondents' practices towards WSC in the per-protocol analysis. In the secondary outcomes, both knowledge of WSC, intervention (β 3.5, 95%CI 2.8, 4.2) and time (β 3.4, 95%CI 2.7, 5.9); and attitudes towards WSC, intervention (β1.7, 95%CI 1.25, 2.23) and time (β 2.3, 95%CI 1.92, 2.76) significantly improved the respondents' level of knowledge and attitudes respectively towards WSC.
CONCLUSION: The intervention, WSCHEM, was effective in improving the administrative workers' KAP towards WSC, as demonstrated by the significance between and within-group differences.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.
SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias. No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about whether there is a role for school dental screening in improving dental attendance. We are uncertain whether traditional screening is better than no screening (very low-certainty evidence). Criteria-based screening may improve dental attendance when compared to no screening (low-certainty evidence). However, when compared to traditional screening, there is no evidence of a difference in dental attendance (very low-certainty evidence). For children requiring treatment, personalised or specific referral letters may improve dental attendance when compared to non-specific referral letters (very low-certainty evidence). Screening supplemented with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) may improve dental attendance in comparison to screening alone (very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether a referral letter based on the 'common-sense model of self-regulation' is better than a standard referral letter (very low-certainty evidence) or whether specific referral to a dental treatment facility is better than a generic advice letter to visit the dentist (very low-certainty evidence). The trials included in this review evaluated effects of school dental screening in the short term. None of them evaluated its effectiveness for improving oral health or addressed possible adverse effects or costs.