4.6 Article

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: An expanding problem with low levels of awareness in Hong Kong

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 1786-1790

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.05914.x

关键词

awareness; knowledge; NAFLD; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; telephone survey

资金

  1. Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: With the Westernization of the lifestyle and the rising prevalence of obesity and diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an emerging health problem in the Asia-Pacific region. The purpose of this study was to determine the awareness of NAFLD among the general population in Hong Kong. Methods: A random telephone survey was conducted from September 2007 to January 2008 using a structured multiple-choice questionnaire. Subjects were Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above who spoke Cantonese. Results: In the first phase of the telephone survey, 521 subjects were interviewed and the results showed that as high as 83% of respondents had never come across the term 'NAFLD'. Upon completion of the second phase telephone survey, a total of 508 respondents who had heard of NAFLD were successfully interviewed. Of the 508 respondents, nearly half of them (42%) expressed no idea about the prevalence of NAFLD in Hong Kong. About half of respondents (47%) knew nothing about the clinical presentation of NAFLD. The majority of them (78%) had a misconception that blood tests could provide a definite diagnosis of NAFLD. Smoking, hepatitis B carriage and a past history of hepatitis A infection were cited as risk factors of NAFLD by 52%, 57% and 42% of respondents, respectively. Of the 508 respondents who had heard of NAFLD, most of them perceived that their knowledge of NAFLD was either inadequate (46%) or highly inadequate (35%). Conclusion: This survey revealed an inadequate knowledge of NAFLD among the general population in Hong Kong.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据