METHODS: An emergency response programme on mental health was conducted from June to September 2020. A standardized data collection form was distributed among the HCWs in the government hospital in Klang Valley. The form contained basic demographic information and the self-reported Malay version of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress scale (BM DASS-21).
RESULTS: Of the1,300 staff who attended the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Covid-19 (MHPSS COVID-19) programme, 996 staff (21.6% male, 78.4% female) completed the online survey (response rate: 76.6%). Result showed that staff aged above 40 years old were almost two times more likely to have anxiety (AOR = 1.632; 95% CI = 1.141-2.334, p:0.007) and depression (AOR = 1.637; 95% CI = 1.1.06-2.423, p:0.014) as compared to staff who were less than 40 years old. Those who had direct involvement with COVID-19 patients were likely to suffer stress (AOR = 0.596; 95% CI = 0.418-0.849, p:0.004), anxiety (AOR = 0.706; 95% Ci = 0.503-0.990, p:0.044) and depression (AOR = 0.630; 95% Ci = 0.427-0.928, p:0.019). HCWs with stress (AOR = 0.638; 95% CI of 0.476-0.856, p = 0.003), anxiety (AOR = 0.720; 95% CI 0.542-0.958, p = 0.024) and depression (AOR = 0.657; 95% CI 0.480-0.901, p = 0.009) showed less confidence to treat critically ill patients and need psychological help during outbreak.
CONCLUSION: This study showed the importance of psychosocial support to reduce psychological distress among HCWs when working or coping during the COVID-19 pandemic or outbreak.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 153 Muslim patients with MS. Data related to the disease course before Ramadan were obtained from patients' files, whereas data related to the disease activity during Ramadan, were collected from patients over the two months following Ramadan.
RESULTS: Patients with MS who experienced relapses, exacerbation of symptoms and development of new symptoms during Ramadan had a statistically significant longer disease duration compared to those who did not experience (P < 0.001, <0.001, 0.01 respectively). Also, patients who experienced relapses, exacerbation of symptoms and development of new symptoms during Ramadan had a statistically significant higher expanded disability status scale (EDSS) compared to those who did not experience (P <0.001, <0.001,0.01, respectively). The occurrence of relapses, exacerbation of symptoms and development of new symptoms during Ramadan, were significantly higher in patients who experienced relapses in the preceding year compared to those who did not (P= 0.002, 0.002, 0.01, respectively). Binary logistic regression revealed that each score elevation of EDSS increased the odds of relapse during Ramadan by 1.02 (P-value = 0.04). Also, each month's increase in disease duration increased the odds of relapse during Ramadan by 1.87 (P-value = 0.046).
CONCLUSION: High EDSS and long disease duration are independent predictors of relapse during Ramadan.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
METHODS: In a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants [55% women; mean age 32 y, standard deviation (SD) 11; mean body mass index 26 kg/m2, SD 5] were randomized to 1 of 3 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day [Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia (ASA24); Intake24-Australia; mobile Food Record-Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)]. When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record (mFR) app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models.
RESULTS: The mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI: 0.6, 10.2%) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI: -2.9, 6.3%) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI: -1.1, 3.8%) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI: 11.6, 18.3%) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P < 0.01) except Intake24 (P = 0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Under controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance. This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12621000209897.
METHODS: The initial 11-factor and 132-item AEEMI was distributed to 1930 pre-clinical and clinical year medical students from 11 medical schools in Malaysia. The study examined the construct validity of the AEEMI using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
RESULTS: The best-fit model of AEEMI was achieved using 5 factors and 26 items (χ 2 = 3300.71 (df = 1680), P