Search

Purpose: Housing is essential to health. Governmental rental assistance is one way to increase access to affordable housing, but little is known about how it varies by rural/urban location. This paper seeks to address that gap by examining rural/urban and within‐rural differences in receipt of rental assistance, with particular attention differences by health and disability. Methods: We used data from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (n = 28,254) to conduct bivariate analyses to identify significant differences in receipt of rental assistance by rural/urban location. We then conducted logistic regression analyses to generate odds ratios of receiving rental assistance, adjusting for self‐rated health, disability, sociodemographic characteristics, and the US Census region. Findings: When limiting the sample to those who rent (20.6% of rural residents and 29.6% of urban residents), rural residents were nearly 5 percentage points more likely to receive rental assistance (13.1% vs 8.2%, P<.001). Rural recipients of rental assistance were more likely to have a disability than urban residents (27.9% vs 20.3%, P<.05) and were more likely to report fair/poor health (41.6% vs 31.4%, P<.05). Conclusions: Rural residents are less likely to rent their homes, but, among those who rent, they are more likely to receive governmental rental assistance. This may be reflective of the greater need for rental assistance among rural residents, who were in poorer health and of lower socioeconomic status than urban renters. As housing is essential to good health, policy attention must prioritize addressing a persistent and growing need for affordable housing in rural and urban areas alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to systematically and critically appraise the available scientific evidence concerning the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients compared to non‐diabetic people. Methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and Cochrane‐CENTRAL databases were comprehensively searched up to April 2023 to identify appropriate studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age with the primary aim of investigating the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients. Based on the extracted data, a meta‐analysis was performed. Recommendations based on the body of evidence were formulated using the GRADE approach. Results: Independent screening of 2085 unique titles and abstracts revealed seven publications that met the eligibility criteria. Study size ranged from 293 to 15,943 participants. Data from all seven studies were suitable for meta‐analysis. Overall, 8.3% of the studied population was edentulous. The weighted mean prevalence of edentulism among diabetic and non‐diabetics was 14.0% and 7.1%, respectively. The overall odds ratio for diabetic patients to be edentulous as compared to non‐diabetics was 2.39 (95% CI [1.73, 3.28], p < 0.00001). Conclusion: There appears to be moderate certainty that the risk of being edentulous for diabetic patients compared to non‐diabetic people is significant, but the odds ratio is estimated to be small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the meta‐analysis was to evaluate and compare the photodynamic therapy's effectiveness in treating infected skin wounds. The results of this meta‐analysis were analysed, and the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using dichotomous or contentious random‐ or fixed‐effect models. For the current meta‐analysis, 6 examinations spanning from 2013 to 2021 were included, encompassing 154 patients with infected skin wounds were the used studies' starting point. Photodynamic therapy had a significantly lower wound ulcer size (MD, −4.42; 95% CI, −7.56–−1.28, p = 0.006), better tissue repair (MD, −8.62; 95% CI, −16.76–−0.48, p = 0.04) and lower microbial cell viability (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04–0.42, p < 0.001) compared with red light exposure in subjects with infected skin wounds. The examined data revealed that photodynamic therapy had a significantly lower wound ulcer size, better tissue repair and lower microbial cell viability compared with red light exposure in subjects with infected skin wounds. However, given that all examinations had a small sample size, consideration should be given to their values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]