METHODS: All consecutive inborn infants with umbilical arterial (UAC) and/or umbilical venous catheters (UVC) inserted for more than 6 h duration were included in the study. Each infant was screened for thrombosis in the abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava by 2-D abdominal ultrasonography within 48-72 h of insertion of umbilical vascular catheters. Subsequent serial scanning was performed at intervals of every 5-7 days, and within 48 h after removal of catheters.
RESULTS: Upon removal of umbilical catheters, abdominal aortic thrombi were detected in 32/99 (32.3%) infants with UAC. Small thrombi were detected in the inferior vena cava of 2/49 (4.1%) infants with UVC (one of whom had both UAC and UVC). When compared with those who received only UVC (n = 18), infants who received either UAC alone (n = 68) or both UAC and UVC (n = 31) had significantly higher risk of developing thrombosis (odds ratio (OR): 7.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 325.5)). Logistic regression analysis of various potential risk factors showed that the only significant risk factor associated with the development of abdominal aortic thrombosis following insertion of UAC was longer duration of UAC in situ (for every additional day of UAC in situ, adjusted OR of developing thrombosis was: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.3; P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: Umbilical arterial catheter-associated thrombosis was common. Umbilical arterial catheter should be removed as soon as possible when not needed. Upon removal of UAC, all infants should be screened for abdominal aortic thrombus by 2-D ultrasonography.
METHODS: A total of 351 participants (Mage = 19.75, SDage = 3.29) were recruited in the study using purposive sampling. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factorial structure of the Family Resilience Scale-Malay (FRS-Malay) and measurement invariance between adolescents and young adults. Then, the scale's reliability was investigated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega coefficients, and composite reliability index. Finally, we examined the discriminant validity of the FRS-Malay by correlating its score with individual resilience score and examined the incremental validity of the scale using hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test if family resilience can explain individual well-being levels beyond and above individual resilience.
RESULTS: The findings of the confirmatory factor analysis suggest that a single-factor model is supported for both age groups. Furthermore, the scale exhibited scalar invariance between adolescents and young adults. The scale also exhibited good reliability, as the value of Cronbach's alpha, McDonald omega coefficients, and composite reliability index were above 0.80. Additionally, the Pearson correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between the FRS-Malay and individual resilience scores, which supports the discriminant validity of the scale. Similarly, the incremental validity of the scale is also supported. Specifically, family resilience had a positive correlation with well-being, even after controlling for individual resilience in the regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: The FRS-Malay has demonstrated good reliability and validity. The scale measures the same construct of family resilience across adolescents and young adults, making it suitable for comparisons. Therefore, this unidimensional tool is appropriate for self-reporting their perceived level of family resilience. It is also useful for studying the development and fluctuation of family resilience in the Malaysian context.