Background: In Malaysia, occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is often under-reported. This case report describes a chemical engineer who developed possible ACD, likely due to workplace allergen exposure.Case presentation: He presented with a 4-month history of intensely itchy rashes on both hands, which improved during work breaks. A dermatological examination revealed lichenified, pruritic papules with well-defined borders on the palmar surfaces of both hands. A skin patch test identified reactions to five allergens, including ‘fragrance mix,’ ‘methyldibromo glutaronitrile,’ ‘clioquinol,’ ‘epoxy resin,’ and ‘textile dye mix.’ However, among these, only ‘bisphenol A diglycidyl ether,’ a component of ‘epoxy resin,’ was listed in the safety data sheet as a confirmed occupational exposure. In accordance with local regulations, this case was reported as ‘occupational dermatitis’ to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The patient was prescribed symptomatic topical treatments, including emollients and topical corticosteroids. Additionally, he was advised to switch to hypoallergenic products. On follow-up, his chronic inflammatory skin lesions showed improvement. Conclusions Thorough occupational history-taking and patch testing are essential for diagnosing ACD. Personalized health education and regular follow-ups, is crucial in monitoring lesion resolution and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures in workplace settings.

Background: In Malaysia, occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is often under-reported. This case report describes a chemical engineer who developed possible ACD, likely due to workplace allergen exposure.Case presentation: He presented with a 4-month history of intensely itchy rashes on both hands, which improved during work breaks. A dermatological examination revealed lichenified, pruritic papules with well-defined borders on the palmar surfaces of both hands. A skin patch test identified reactions to five allergens, including ‘fragrance mix,’ ‘methyldibromo glutaronitrile,’ ‘clioquinol,’ ‘epoxy resin,’ and ‘textile dye mix.’ However, among these, only ‘bisphenol A diglycidyl ether,’ a component of ‘epoxy resin,’ was listed in the safety data sheet as a confirmed occupational exposure. In accordance with local regulations, this case was reported as ‘occupational dermatitis’ to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The patient was prescribed symptomatic topical treatments, including emollients and topical corticosteroids. Additionally, he was advised to switch to hypoallergenic products. On follow-up, his chronic inflammatory skin lesions showed improvement. Conclusions Thorough occupational history-taking and patch testing are essential for diagnosing ACD. Personalized health education and regular follow-ups, is crucial in monitoring lesion resolution and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures in workplace settings.

Background: In Malaysia, occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is often under-reported. This case report describes a chemical engineer who developed possible ACD, likely due to workplace allergen exposure.Case presentation: He presented with a 4-month history of intensely itchy rashes on both hands, which improved during work breaks. A dermatological examination revealed lichenified, pruritic papules with well-defined borders on the palmar surfaces of both hands. A skin patch test identified reactions to five allergens, including ‘fragrance mix,’ ‘methyldibromo glutaronitrile,’ ‘clioquinol,’ ‘epoxy resin,’ and ‘textile dye mix.’ However, among these, only ‘bisphenol A diglycidyl ether,’ a component of ‘epoxy resin,’ was listed in the safety data sheet as a confirmed occupational exposure. In accordance with local regulations, this case was reported as ‘occupational dermatitis’ to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The patient was prescribed symptomatic topical treatments, including emollients and topical corticosteroids. Additionally, he was advised to switch to hypoallergenic products. On follow-up, his chronic inflammatory skin lesions showed improvement. Conclusions Thorough occupational history-taking and patch testing are essential for diagnosing ACD. Personalized health education and regular follow-ups, is crucial in monitoring lesion resolution and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures in workplace settings.

Background: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is one of the most prevalent occupational disease globally. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a training and education program in increasing knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) towards NIHL prevention among vector control workers. Methods: This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial design involving 183 vector control workers from nine district health offices in the state of Perak, Malaysia. Both groups were followed-up for a period of 3 months. Changes in KAP score towards NIHL was measured at intervals of 1 month and 3 months post-intervention. Data was analyzed according to Per-Protocol (PP) principles. Results: Both intervention and control groups showed increase in mean scores for all three domains (knowledge, attitude and practice) after 1 month but a larger improvement was seen in the intervention group for the attitude and practice domain in comparison to the control group. For the practice domain, the intergroup mean difference was 0.35% with 95% CI of -5.2 to 4.5. The greatest improvement was seen in attitude domain where the intergroup mean difference was 0.9% (95% CI -4.1, 2.3). At 3 months post-intervention, a greater improvement was observed in the intervention group compared to the control group for all 3 domains. The largest improvement was seen in the practice domain where the intergroup mean difference was -4.2 (95% CI -9.1, 0.7). Conclusion The training and education program was effective in maintaining the existing knowledge, attitude and practice of vector controls towards noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). Continuous training and education is needed to cultivate good safety behaviour at workplace.
Health Education

Background: COVID-19 was first detected in Malaysia on 25 January 2020. Multiple clusters were detected in Petaling District, with the first locally transmitted case reported on 8 February. Descriptive analyses of the epidemiology of the COVID-19 outbreak in Petaling are presented, from the first case to the end of the first wave. Methods: All laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported to the Petaling District Health Office between 1 February and 26 June 2020 were analysed. Socio-demographic characteristics, symptoms, date of onset, date of exposure, travel history and history of comorbidities were obtained by phone interviews using one of two investigation forms. The descriptive analysis was conducted according to time, place and person. Results: There were 437 COVID-19 cases, for an incidence rate of 24/100 000 population. Ten (2.3%) deaths and 427 recovered cases were recorded. Of the 437 cases, 35.5% remained asymptomatic and 64.5% were symptomatic. Common symptoms included fever (43.8%), cough (31.6%) and sore throat (16.2%); 67.3% had no comorbidities, 62.5% reported close contact with a confirmed case, and 76.7% were local infections. Transmission occurred in four main groups: religious gatherings (20.4%), corporations (15.1%), health facilities (10.3%) and a wholesale wet market (6.4%). In 31.9% of confirmed cases, an epidemiological link to an asymptomatic case was found. Conclusion: Transmission of the disease by asymptomatic cases should be emphasized to ensure continuous wearing of face masks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Further research should be conducted to better understand the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic cases.