Parenting Styles and Self-Efficacy of Adolescents: Malaysian Scenario

Parenting styles and its impact on adolescents psychosocial development has been an area of interest in the field of psychology Previous studies have revealed that parenting styles are correlated with adolescents self-esteem drug and alcohol use delinquency and academic performance This study aimed to investigate the effect of parenting styles namely authoritative authoritarian and permissive on adolescents self-efficacy level A hundred and twenty students served as participants for this study The mean age for the entire sample was 18 441 and had an equal number of males and females A single survey was administered and data on perceived parenting styles and ratings on self-efficacy were collected Correlation was carried out and results indicated that authoritative parenting style is highly associated with self-efficacy Regression result showed that authoritative parenting style contributes 12 8 towards student s self-efficacy However authoritarian and permissive parenting styles do not produce any significant relationship when associated with self-efficacy T-test comparison revealed a significant difference of self-efficacy among the males and females The male students demonstrated higher level of self-efficacy as compared to the females This study is significant because it allows helping professionals to gain a better understanding on the relationship between parenting styles and self-efficac

Statin Treatment and Clinical Outcomes of Heart Failure Among Africans: An Inverse Probability Treatment Weighted Analysis

Daniel Reidpath - ORCID: 0000-0002-8796-0420 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-0420Background Randomized control trials of statins have not demonstrated significant benefits in outcomes of heart failure (HF). However, randomized control trials may not always be generalizable. The aim was to determine whether statin and statin type–lipophilic or –hydrophilic improve long‐term outcomes in Africans with HF. Methods and Results This was a retrospective longitudinal study of HF patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized at a tertiary healthcare center between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013 in Ghana. Patients were eligible if they were discharged from first admission for HF (index admission) and followed up to time of all‐cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality or end of study. Multivariable time‐dependent Cox model and inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting of marginal structural model were used to estimate associations between statin treatment and outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios were also estimated for lipophilic and hydrophilic statin compared with no statin use. The study included 1488 patients (mean age 60.3±14.2 years) with 9306 person‐years of observation. Using the time‐dependent Cox model, the 5‐year adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CI for statin treatment on all‐cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality were 0.68 (0.55–0.83), 0.67 (0.54–0.82), and 0.63 (0.51–0.79), respectively. Use of inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting resulted in estimates of 0.79 (0.65–0.96), 0.77 (0.63–0.96), and 0.77 (0.61–0.95) for statin treatment on all‐cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality, respectively, compared with no statin use. Conclusions Among Africans with HF, statin treatment was associated with significant reduction in mortality.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.0047066pubpub

Lipophilic Statin Versus Rosuvastatin (Hydrophilic) Treatment for Heart Failure: a Meta-Analysis and Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Randomised Trials

Daniel Reidpath - ORCID: 0000-0002-8796-0420 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-0420Item is not available in this repository.Objectives This study aims to compare lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy on clinical outcomes of heart failure (HF) using a systematic review and an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization and hospitalization for worsening HF. Methods We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases until 31st December 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) in HF evaluating statins versus placebo. Identified RCTs and their respective abstracted information were grouped according to statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were initially pooled with the Peto’s one-step method, producing odd ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin for each outcome. Results Thirteen studies involving 10,966 patients were identified and analyzed. Lipophilic statins were superior to hydrophilic rosuvastatin regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0 · 50; 95 % CI, 0 · 11–0 · 89; p = 0 · 01), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0 · 61; 0 · 25–0 · 97; p = 0 · 009), and hospitalization for worsening HF (OR 0 · 52; 0 · 21–0 · 83; p = 0 · 0005). However, both statins were comparable with regards to cardiovascular hospitalization [OR 0 · 80 (0 · 31, 1 · 28); p = 0 · 36]. Conclusions Lipophilic statin treatment shows significant decreases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for worsening HF compared with rosuvastatin treatment. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence that lipophilic statins offer better clinical outcomes in HF till data from head to head comparisons are available.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10557-015-6636-z30pubpub

Statins in heart failure: do we need another trial?

Statins lower serum cholesterol and are employed for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Clinical evidence from observational studies, retrospective data, and post hoc analyses of data from large statin trials in various cardiovascular conditions, as well as small scale randomized trials, suggest survival and other outcome benefits for heart failure. Two recent large randomized controlled trials, however, appear to suggest statins do not have beneficial effects in heart failure. In addition to lowering cholesterol, statins are believed to have many pleotropic effects which could possibly influence the pathophysiology of heart failure. Following the two large trials, evidence from recent studies appears to support the use of statins in heart failure. This review discusses the role of statins in the pathophysiology of heart failure, current evidence for statin use in heart failure, and suggests directions for future research

Effects of Statin Treatment on Inflammation and Cardiac Function in Heart Failure: An Adjusted Indirect Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Daniel Reidpath - ORCID: 0000-0002-8796-0420 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-0420Item is not available in this repository.Introduction Statins are known to prevent heart failure (HF). However, it is unclear whether statins as class or type (lipophilic or hydrophilic) improve outcomes of established HF. Aims The current meta-analysis was performed to compare the treatment effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on inflammation and cardiac function in HF. Outcomes were indicators of cardiac function [changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)] and inflammation [changes in highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and interluekin-6 (IL-6)]. Method We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases until December 31, 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) of statin versus placebo in patients with HF. RCTs with their respective extracted information were dichotomized into statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were pooled with random effect approach, producing standardized mean differences (SMD) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons for each outcome. Results Data from 6214 patients from 19 trials were analyzed. Lipophilic statin was superior to hydrophilic statin treatment regarding follow-up LVEF (SMD, 4.54; 95% CI, 4.16–4.91; P < 0.001), BNP (SMD, −1.60; 95% CI, −2.56 to −0.65; P < 0.001), hsCRP (SMD, −1.13; 95% CI, −1.54 to −0.72; P < 0.001), and IL-6 (SMD, −3.75; 95% CI, −4.77 to −0.72; P < 0.001) in HF. Conclusions Lipophilic statin produces greater treatment effects on cardiac function and inflammation compared with hydrophilic statin in patients with HF. Until data from adequately powered head-to-head trial of the statin types are available, our meta-analysis brings clinicians and researchers a step closer to the quest on which statin—lipophilic or hydrophilic—is associated with better outcomes in HF.https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-5922.1215033pubpub

Lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin therapy for heart failure: a protocol for an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis

Daniel Reidpath - ORCID: 0000-0002-8796-0420 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8796-0420Background Statins are known to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in primary and secondary prevention studies. Subsequently, a number of nonrandomised studies have shown statins improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Small randomised controlled trials (RCT) also show improved cardiac function, reduced inflammation and mortality with statins in HF. However, the findings of two large RCTs do not support the evidence provided by previous studies and suggest statins lack beneficial effects in HF. Two meta-analyses have shown statins do not improve survival, whereas two others showed improved cardiac function and reduced inflammation in HF. It appears lipophilic statins produce better survival and other outcome benefits compared to hydrophilic statins. But the two types have not been compared in direct comparison trials in HF. Methods/design We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy in patients with HF. Our objectives are: 1. To determine the effects of lipophilic statins on (1) mortality, (2) hospitalisation for worsening HF, (3) cardiac function and (4) inflammation. 2. To determine the effects of hydrophilic statins on (1) mortality, (2) hospitalisation for worsening HF, (3) cardiac function and (4) inflammation. 3. To compare the efficacy of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on HF outcomes with an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis. We will conduct an electronic search of databases for RCTs that evaluate statins in patients with HF. The reference lists of all identified studies will be reviewed. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search. The inclusion criteria include: 1. RCTs comparing statins with placebo or no statin in patients with symptomatic HF. 2. RCTs that employed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle in data analysis. 3. Symptomatic HF patients of all aetiologies and on standard treatment. 4. Statin of any dose as intervention. 5. Placebo or no statin arm as control. The exclusion criteria include: 1. RCTs involving cerivastatin in HF patients. 2. RCTs with less than 4 weeks of follow-up. Discussion We will perform an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statins in patients with HF using placebo or no statin arm as common comparator.https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-222pubpub

Social support in type II diabetes care: a case of too little, too late

Amudha Kadirvelu, Sivalal Sadasivan, Shu Hui NgSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Sunway Campus, Selangor, MalaysiaAbstract: Coping with type II diabetic patients is increasingly posing large financial burdens, sorely felt especially by growing economies. Self-management has been found to be an effective approach towards maintaining good control in diabetics. However, although efforts at implementing self-management have had initial success, there has been a lack of sustainability. This review examines the different components impinging on self-care among type II diabetic patients. These include the critical role of social support, the need for support from health care providers, the value of support from family and friends, the influence of sex and cultural factors in self-care behavior, the benefits of peer support, and the role of literacy in diabetes self-care. Despite the mounting evidence for the effectiveness of social support in diabetes care, and the various stakeholders including this in their clinical guidelines, there has only been a lukewarm response from policy-makers towards ensuring its implementation. Hence, more effort is required from health care providers in moving away from just understanding the effects of new drugs and subsequently putting their patients on these drugs, and going back to the basics of communicating with the patients, understanding their woes, and helping to motivate/empower their patients. This paper analyzes the various components of social support, their influence on diabetes self-care, and how health care providers can help in this process.Keywords: type II diabetes mellitus, social support, self-management/self-car