Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
BMC Fam Pract ; 21(1): 50, 2020 03 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32160862

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Offspring of type 2 diabetes patients have an absolute risk of 20-40% of developing the condition. Type 2 diabetes patients should be encouraged to speak to their offspring regarding diabetes risk and prevention strategies. The Health Belief Model conceptualises that the higher the perceived risk, the more likely an individual will modify their behaviour. The objectives of this study were to i) determine the distribution of type 2 diabetes patients regarding their willingness to accept training to speak to their offspring, ii) determine the distribution of type 2 diabetes patients regarding their willingness to accept training based on the HBM and iii) to determine the factors associated with their willingness to accept training. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study amongst type 2 diabetes patients attending two primary care clinics in Malaysia. Sociodemographic data and knowledge of diabetes risk factors were collected. The adapted, translated and validated Diabetes Mellitus in the Offspring Questionnaire-Malay version (DMOQ-Malay) was self-administered. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, univariate and multiple logistic regression (MLogR). RESULTS: A total of 425 participants were recruited. Of these, 61.6% were willing to accept training. In MLogR, six variables were found to be significantly associated with willingness to accept training. These were i) positive family history [Adj. OR 2.06 (95% CI: 1.27, 3.35)], ii) having the correct knowledge that being overweight is a risk factor [Adj. OR 1.49 (95%CI: 1.01, 2.29)], iii) correctly identifying age ≥ 40 years old as a risk factor [Adj. OR 1.88 (95%CI: 1.22, 2.90)], iv) agreeing that speaking to their offspring would help them to prevent type 2 diabetes [Adj. OR 4.34 (95%: 1.07, 17.73)], v) being neutral with the statement 'I do not have much contact with my offspring' [Adj. OR: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.810] and vi) being neutral with the statement 'my offspring are not open to advice from me' [Adj. OR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.84]. CONCLUSION: The majority of type 2 diabetes patients were willing to accept training to speak to their offspring to prevent diabetes. A training module should be designed to enhance their knowledge, attitude and skills to become family health educators.


Asunto(s)
Hijo de Padres Discapacitados , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Educación no Profesional/métodos , Educación en Salud/métodos , Responsabilidad Parental , Conducta de Reducción del Riesgo , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/prevención & control , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/psicología , Salud de la Familia , Femenino , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Humanos , Relaciones Intergeneracionales , Malasia/epidemiología , Masculino , Factores de Riesgo
2.
J Alzheimers Dis ; 90(4): 1417-1427, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36057819

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Self or home-administered cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) can reduce barriers to the early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. OBJECTIVE: To examine the acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a caregiver-administered CSI, the Quick Memory Check (QMC). METHODS: Components of the Quick Mild Cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen (orientation, verbal fluency, and logical memory) were re-weighted to create the QMC, scored out of 100 points. Participants, attending a university hospital memory clinic, were provided administration instructions beforehand. Area under the curve (AUC) scores, adjusted for age and education, were compared with the Qmci screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Caregivers or family scored the QMC. RESULTS: In all, 366 participants were recruited; 53 with subjective memory complaints (SMC), 74 with MCI, 193 with dementia, and 46 normal controls. Median QMC scores for controls were 70±13 versus 60±20 for SMC, 52±18 for MCI, and 31±21 for dementia. The QMC had excellent accuracy (AUC 0.97) for cognitive impairment (MCI/dementia from controls), similar to the Qmci screen (AUC 0.98, p = 0.17) and MoCA (AUC 0.95, p = 0.13). At a cut-off of <52/100, the QMC had 83% sensitivity and 100% specificity for cognitive impairment. The QMC had lower accuracy differentiating MCI from SMC (AUC 0.73), albeit similar to the MoCA (AUC 0.70). CONCLUSION: The QMC, administered by caregivers in advance of clinic, compared favorably to established CSIs scored by trained raters. This caregiver, home-administered CSI is acceptable and can identify cognitive impairment, potentially improving efficiency by reducing testing time and patient stress in busy clinical settings.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Cognitiva , Demencia , Humanos , Pruebas Neuropsicológicas , Demencia/diagnóstico , Demencia/psicología , Disfunción Cognitiva/diagnóstico , Disfunción Cognitiva/psicología , Pruebas de Estado Mental y Demencia , Cognición , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA