Background: Statins are a class of potent drugs that can be used to reduce cholesterol, especially low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, their effectiveness is limited if adherence to treatment is poor. The objectives of the study are to estimate the proportion of diabetic patient who has achieved LDL-C goal and to determine the association of LDL-C achievement with socio demographic factors and statin therapy adherence Methods: This is a cross-sectional study involving 234 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and dyslipidaemia attending an outpatient clinic in a hospital in Kelantan. Interviews and self-administered questionnaires were used to determine their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Adherence to therapy was assessed using the Medication Compliance Questionnaire (MCQ). The associations between the achievement of LDL targets and sociodemographic/clinical factors, including adherence, were analysed with simple logistic regression. Results: About 37.6% of patients achieved their LDL-C target. The percentage of patients who adhered to statin use was 98.3%, and 20.5% of these patients reported full adherence. There was no significant association between achievement of LDL-C targets with adherence or any other sociodemographic factors, such as age, gender and educational or economic status (all P-value < 0.05). Conclusion: Despite a high level of adherence, the majority of patients failed to achieve LDL-C targets. More concerted efforts are needed to improve this.

Background: Medical training is often regarded as a stressful period. Studies have previously found that 21.6%–50% of medical students experience significant psychological distress. The present study compared the prevalence and levels of psychological distress between 2 cohorts of first-year medical students that underwent different admission selection processes. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted by comparing 2 cohorts of first-year medical students; 1 group (cohort 1) was selected based purely on academic merit (2008/2009 cohort) and the other group (cohort 2) was selected based on academic merit, psychometric assessment, and interview performance (2009/2010 cohort). Their distress levels were measured by the General Health Questionnaire, and scores higher than 3 were considered indicative of significant psychological distress. Results: The prevalence (P = 0.003) and levels (P = 0.001) of psychological distress were significantly different between the 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 had 1.2–3.3 times higher risk of developing psychological distress compared to cohort 2 (P = 0.007). Conclusion: Cohort 2 had better psychological health than cohort 1 and was less likely to develop psychological distress. This study provided evidence of a potential benefit of multimodal student selection based on academic merit, psychometric assessment, and interview performance. This selection process might identify medical students who will maintain better psychological health.