Search

Increasingly, studies compare risk and protective factors for involvement in violent and nonviolent terrorist behaviors. This exploratory study investigates whether this distinction is sufficient, or whether it should be disaggregated further into more granular terrorist roles and behaviors. Using data on 404 referrals to a UK countering violent extremism Prevent hub specializing in mental health and associated needs, we compare violent and nonviolent referrals, and then more specific behaviors (vulnerability, proactive extremism, foreign fighting, and violence planning). Bivariate and multivariate analyses show there is value in disaggregating beyond the binary violence versus nonviolence distinction, as more (and more detailed) relationships emerged when using the disaggregated set of behaviors. While gender did not differentiate violent and nonviolent referrals, women were more likely to be referred for radicalization vulnerability or potential foreign fighting. Extreme right-wing and extreme Islamist referrals were no more or less violent overall, but Islamist referrals were disproportionately referred for both the most and least violent behaviors. Personality and developmental disorders were associated with violence, and disaggregated behaviors provided detailed insight into the drivers of these associations. These exploratory findings, while interesting, likely do not generalize beyond our specific sample. Instead, this study's value lies in demonstrating the utility for both research and, eventually, practice of disaggregating beyond violence and nonviolence. The results demonstrate clear operational implications for threat assessment in the need to include a more refined set of risk factors to aid in assessing risk of more relevant outcomes than terrorist involvement overall., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)

Objective: To explore the interventions for change in oral health behaviour that are effective in improving oral health behaviours in 8 to 18-year-old children during oral health promotion. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute framework of evidence synthesis for conducting a scoping review was implemented for the methodology. Included studies related to the objective, measured clinical or non-clinical outcomes, were in English, 2011–2023, and were experimental, observational or reviews. PUBMED, Science-Direct, Scopus and Sabinet were systematically searched with predetermined search strings. Studies were selected by appraisal of the title, abstract and full text. Data were extracted using a standardised template and the key questions were addressed via a qualitative analysis. Results: Searches yielded 407 articles from electronic databases. Of these, 290 articles were excluded, and 47 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, with 23 studies and two systematic reviews finalised for inclusion. In addition, a PEARL search was conducted from the reference lists of other studies. Most studies (91.3%) focused on educating children directly; 8.7% indirectly influenced parents, guardians, and teachers. Interventions focused largely on traditional oral health education presented in diverse forms and via different platforms. Studies differentiated clinical outcomes (indices) from non-clinical outcomes (knowledge, behaviour). All included RCTs were of different quality regarding selection, performance and detection bias. But all studies indicated a low risk of bias in attrition and Reporting bias. Seventeen of the 25 studies (68%) were not based on any behaviour change theory. Conclusions: Oral health interventions based on motivational interviewing and the social cognitive theory have been shown to be to be effective. Interventions could also include practical tooth brushing activities, gamification, audio-visual components, as well as reinforcement and repetition in the longer term. Future oral health promotion in children should be designed to include these elements. There is a need for higher quality studies in this field, with future research being urged to provide detailed intervention descriptions and incorporate longer follow-up periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Primary care lacks emphasis on oral health (OH) despite its major effects on one's overall health. This mixed-methods bibliometric study was conducted to assess the content of OH in primary care journals., Methods: Sixty-seven of the most influential journals were identified from primary care specialties and disciplines using Scopus CiteScore metrics and expert opinion. For each specialty, one journal was chosen as the "core journal." A search string was then developed to extract OH related articles found within a ten-year time frame (2012-2021) which were subsequently analyzed for OH content, trends, and article type., Results: Of the 1784 articles extracted, 1068 met inclusion criteria. When compared with the total number of articles published by journals in any category, OH articles comprised less than 1% of total articles published between 2012 and 2021. Family medicine showed a borderline significant increase in OH articles over this time period while pediatrics showed a significant decline. Among the core journals, there was a statistically significant decline in OH articles published in geriatrics and pediatrics. Case reports and review articles were the most common type of OH article published. General oral lesions and population-specific OH delivery were the most common topics published., Conclusion: This review highlights the relatively low prevalence of OH articles in primary care journals and defines the most prevalent types of OH articles. Further studies are needed to understand the reasons for the lack of OH articles in primary care journals and the implications for primary care providers and learners., (© 2025 American Association of Public Health Dentistry.)