ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the prevalence of anaemia among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) at primary care settings and its associated factors.Design, setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study involved 808 adult patients with T2DM and CKD who were recruited via systematic sampling from 20 public primary care clinics in Peninsular Malaysia. Their sociodemographic, clinical and biomedical profiles were collected through interviews, examination of medical records and blood testing.ResultsThe prevalence of anaemia was 31.7% (256/808). The anaemia was mainly mild (61.5%) and normocytic normochromic (58.7%). About 88.7% of the patients with anaemia were not known to have anaemia prior to the study. Among 36 patients with documented history of anaemia, 80.6% were still anaemic, and only a half received iron therapy. Multivariate regression analysis showed that women (adjusted odd ratio (AOR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.21, p=0.009) and those with older age (AOR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.06, p<0.001), CKD stage 3a (AOR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.25 to 4.87, p=0.009), CKD stage 3b (AOR: 4.36; 95% CI: 2.14 to 8.85, p<0.001), CKD stage 4 (AOR: 10.12; 95% CI: 4.36 to 23.47, p<0.001), CKD stage 5 (AOR: 10.80; 95% CI: 3.32 to 35.11, p<0.001) and foot complication (AOR 3.12, 95% CI: 1.51 to 6.46, p=0.002) were more likely to have anaemia. Having higher body mass index (AOR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99, p=0.012) and higher diastolic blood pressure (AOR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99, p<0.001) were associated with lower odds to have anaemia.ConclusionAnaemia among patients with T2DM and CKD in primary care was common, and the majority was unrecognised. Inadequate treatment of anaemia was also prevalent. Therefore, screening of anaemia should be incorporated into the routine assessment of diabetic complications particularly for those with significant associated factors. It is hoped that such strategy could lead to early treatment and hence improve their overall care.Trial registration numberNMRR-15-660-24324.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used especially in Asia including for childhood asthma. The use of CAM could influence adherence to evidence-based (E-B) medicine. We explored the views of carers of Malaysian children with asthma regarding the use of CAM for childhood asthma, and its relationship with self-reported adherence to E-B medicine. We used a screening questionnaire to identify children diagnosed with asthma from seven suburban primary schools in Malaysia. Informed consent was obtained prior to the interviews. We conducted the interviews using a semi-structured topic guide in participants’ preferred language (Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using Nvivo. Analysis was performed thematically, informed by the Necessity-Concerns Framework. A total of 46 carers (16 Malays, 21 Indians, 9 Chinese) contributed to 12 focus groups and one individual interview. We categorised participants’ as ‘Non-CAM’; ‘CAM’; or ‘combination’ user. Cultural practices and beliefs in the efficacy of CAM resulted in widespread use of CAM. Most carers used CAM as ‘complementary’ to E-B medicine. Concerns about dependence on or side effects of E-B treatment influenced carers’ decisions to rely on CAM as an ‘alternative’, with an important minority of accounts describing potentially harmful CAM-use. Healthcare professionals should discuss beliefs about the necessity for and concerns about use of both E-B medicine and CAM, and provide balanced information about effectiveness and safety. The aim is to improve adherence to regular E-B preventer medication and prevent delays in seeking medical advice and harmful practices associated with CAM.

BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients experience many psychosocial problems related to their diabetes. These often lead to emotional disorders such as distress, stress, anxiety and depression, resulting in decreased self-care, quality of life and disease control. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief value-based emotion-focused educational programme in adults with T2DM on diabetes-related distress (DRD), depressive symptoms, illness perceptions, quality of life, diabetes self-efficacy, self-care and clinical outcomes.MethodsA cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 10 public health clinics in Malaysia, all providing diabetes care according to national clinical practice guidelines. Patients’ inclusion criteria: Malay, ≥ 18 years with T2DM for at least 2 years, on regular follow-up with one of three biomarkers HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol sub-optimally controlled, and with a mean 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS-17) score ≥ 3. The intervention consists of four sessions and one booster over a period of 4 months that provide information and skills to assist patients in having proper perceptions of their T2DM including an understanding of the treatment targets, understanding and managing their emotions and goal-setting. The comparator is an attention-control group with three meetings over a similar period. With an estimated intra-cluster correlation coefficient ρ of 0.015, a cluster size of 20 and 20% non-completion, the trial will need to enroll 198 patients. Primary outcome: the between groups difference in proportion of patients achieving a mean DDS-17 score < 3 (non-significant distress) at 6 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes will be the differences in the above mentioned variables between groups.DiscussionWe hypothesize that primary and secondary outcomes will improve significantly after the intervention compared to the comparator group. The results of this study can contribute to better care for T2DM patients with DRD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02730078. Registered on 29 March 2016, last updated on 4 January 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12902-017-0172-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Children with uncontrolled asthma have high risk of poor health outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess asthma control and care in primary school children with reported asthma. A total of 6441 primary school children were first screened for parent-reported physician-diagnosed asthma and 448 (8.9%) children were reported to have asthma. Of these, 311 (69.4%) parents agreed to participate in assessment of asthma control study using Global Initiative for Asthma 2009 guidelines. Only 161 (51.8%) children were found to have good asthma control, 99 (31.8%) had partly controlled asthma, and 51 (16.4%) had uncontrolled asthma in the past one week. In the past 1 year, 157 (50.5%) children had asthma exacerbations, 21 (6.8%) had hospitalizations, and 104 (33.4%) had received emergency asthma care. Only 108 (34.7%) asthmatic children received regular follow-up care. Controller medications were underutilized (12.2%) compared to reliever medications (35.0%). Asthma control among primary school children was poor indicating suboptimal care.