Search

Introduction: The adverse implications of obesity extend beyond physical health to include negative impact on quality of life (QoL), mood, and eating habits. While bariatric surgery provides successful weight loss and metabolic benefits, studies describe conflicting results on QoL and mood-related outcomes. Methods: Patients (n = 140) with class II/III obesity and T2DM were recruited from 2015 to 2019, and stratified based on medical or surgical treatment. Questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Euro QoL visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), and Revised 21-item Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R21) were recorded at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment. Results: At baseline, the surgical group (n = 55) and medical group (n = 85) had no significant difference in questionnaire outcomes. At 6 and 12 months, EQ-VAS was higher in the surgical group (12 months surgical 82.00 ± 12.64, medical 72.81 ± 16.56, p = 0.001), with greater improvement from baseline. HADS-D scores at 12 months were lower in the surgical group (surgical 2.60 ± 2.88, medical 3.90 ± 3.58, p = 0.025). At 12 months, the surgical group also had better TFEQ-R21 scores, with higher cognitive restraint scores (surgical 19.09 ± 3.00, medical 16.69 ± 3.61, p < 0.001), and lower scores for uncontrolled eating (surgical 14.96 ± 3.87, medical 17.89 ± 5.34, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In the treatment of patients with obesity and T2DM, bariatric surgery resulted in improved QoL outcomes at 12 months compared to medical therapy. This could be related to improvement in weight and metabolic outcomes, and altered gut-brain axis communication. This is the first prospective study assessing the impact of bariatric surgery on health-related QoL in Asia compared against a control group who received medical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Social relationships (SR) is an important domain of health-related quality of life. We developed and calibrated a novel item bank to measure SR in Singapore, a multi-ethnic city in Southeast Asia.Methods: We developed an initial candidate pool of 51 items from focus groups, individual in-depth interviews and existing instruments that had been developed and/or validated for use in Singapore. We administered all items in English to a multi-stage sample of subjects, stratified for age and gender, with and without medical conditions, recruited from community and hospital settings. We calibrated their responses using Samejima's Graded Response Model (SGRM). We evaluated a final 30-item bank with respect to Item Response Theory (IRT) model assumptions, model fit, differential item functioning (DIF), and concurrent and known-groups validity.Results: Among 503 participants (47.7% male, 41.4% above 50 years old, 34.0% Chinese, 33.6% Malay and 32.4% Indian), bi-factor model analyses supported essential unidimensionality: explained common variance of the general factor was 0.805 and omega hierarchical was 0.98. Local independence was deemed acceptable: the average absolute residual correlations were < 0.06 and 1.8% of the total item-pair residuals were flagged for local dependence. The overall SGRM model fit was adequate (p = 0.146). Five items exhibited DIF with respect to age, ethnicity and education, but were retained without modification of scores because they measured important aspects of SR. The SR scores correlated in the hypothesized direction with a self-reported measure of global health (Spearman's rho = - 0.28, p < 0.001).Conclusion: The 30-item SR item bank has shown acceptable psychometric properties. Future studies to evaluate the validity of SR scores when items are administered adaptively are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on all walks of life, in particular, environmental services workers in healthcare settings had higher workload, increased stress and greater susceptibility to COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Despite extensive literature describing the impact of the pandemic on healthcare workers such as doctors and nurses, studies on the lived experiences of environmental services workers in healthcare settings are sparse and none has been conducted in the Asian context. This qualitative study thus aimed to examine the experiences of those who worked for a year of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: A purposive sample of environmental services workers was recruited from a major tertiary hospital in Singapore. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in-person, lasting around 30min, and included open-ended questions pertaining to five main domains: work experiences during COVID-19, training and education needs, resource and supplies availability, communication with management and other healthcare staff, and perceived stressors and support. These domains were identified based on team discussions and literature review. The interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis, as guided by Braun and Clarke., Results: A total of 12 environmental services workers were interviewed. After the first seven interviews, no new themes emerged but an additional five interviews were done to ensure data saturation. The analysis yielded three main themes and nine subthemes, including (1) practical and health concerns, (2) coping and resilience, and (3) occupational adaptations during the pandemic. Many expressed confidence in the preventive efficacy of proper PPE, infection control practice and COVID-19 vaccination in protecting them against COVID-19 and severe illness. Having prior experience with infectious disease outbreaks and previous training in infection control and prevention appeared to be useful as well for these workers. Despite the various challenges presented by the pandemic, they could still find meaning in their everyday work by positively impacting the wellbeing of patients and other healthcare workers in the hospital., Conclusion: Besides uncovering the concerns shared by these workers, we identified helpful coping strategies, resilience factors and certain occupational adaptations, which have implications for future pandemic planning and readiness., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Ng, Koh, Xin, Zainal, Tan, Thumboo and Fong.)

Background: Clinician burnout is an important occupational hazard that may be exacerbated by the novel COVID-19 pandemic. Within Southeast Asia, burnout in gastroenterology is understudied. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of burnout symptoms within gastroenterology, in member states of the Associations of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary objective is to identify work-related stressors that contribute to burnout in ASEAN gastroenterologists., Methods and Analysis: This is an observational study that will use anonymised online surveys to estimate the prevalence of burnout symptoms at two time points: during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and in 2022 (assumed to be after the pandemic). Gastroenterologists from Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Brunei will be invited to participate in the online survey through their national gastroenterology and endoscopy societies. Burnout will be assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey tool. Supplementary questions will collect demographic and qualitative data. Associations between demographic characteristics and burnout will be tested by multiple regression., Results: The prevalence of burnout symptoms in gastroenterology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the baseline prevalence after COVID-19, will be established in the above-mentioned countries. Work-related stressors commonly associated with burnout will be identified, allowing the introduction of preventative measures to reduce burnout in the future., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted by the Singhealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (2020/2709). Results will be submitted for publication., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)