Search

Background Despite significant progress in the control of oral diseases since the discovery of fluoride in the 1940s, dental caries and periodontal diseases continue to affect a significant proportion of the population, particularly socially disadvantaged and lower socioeconomic groups. The National Health Service in England provides preventive advice and treatments as part of an oral health assessment, and evidence-based guidance recommends the use of fissure sealants and topical fluorides in addition to dietary and oral hygiene advice. Although oral health promotion and education have become expected parts of dental care, the need for restorative treatments remains relatively high. We aimed to explore how barriers to preventive advice and treatment for NHS patients may be hindering the provision of prevention in oral health to patients from the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders. Methods Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken between March 2016-February 2017 with four groups of stakeholders: dentists, insurers, policy makers and patient participants. The interviews were analysed using deductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results Thirty-two stakeholders participated: 6 dentists, 5 insurers, 10 policy makers, and 11 patient participants. Four themes were developed: Perspectives on the clarity of oral health messaging and patient’s knowledge, The variability of prioritising prevention, Influences of the dentist-patient relationship on effective communication and Motivation to enact positive oral health behaviours. Conclusions The findings from this research indicate that patients’ knowledge of and priority placed on prevention is variable. Participants believed that more targeted education could be valuable in enhancing these. A patient’s relationship with their dentist could also influence their level of knowledge through the information shared with them, their receptivity to the preventive messages and the value they place on it. However, even with knowledge, prioritising prevention and a good patient-dentist relationship, without motivation to engage in preventive behaviour the impact of these is reduced. Our findings are discussed in relation to the COM-B model of behaviour change.

Pain from advanced cancer remains prevalent, severe and often under-treated. The aim of this study was to conduct a discrete choice experiment with patients to understand their preferences for pain management services and inform service development. Focus groups were used to develop the attributes and levels of the discrete choice experiment. The attributes were: waiting time, type of healthcare professional, out-of-pocket costs, side-effect control, quality of communication, quality of information and pain control. Patients completed the discrete choice experiment along with clinical and health-related quality of life questions. Conditional and mixed logit models were used to analyse the data. Patients with cancer pain (n = 221) and within palliative care services completed the survey (45% were female, mean age 64.6 years; age range 21–92 years). The most important aspects of pain management were: good pain control, zero out-of-pocket costs and good side-effect control. Poor or moderate pain control and £30 costs drew the highest negative preferences. Respondents preferred control of side effects and provision of better information and communication, over access to certain healthcare professionals. Those with lower health-related quality of life were less willing to wait for treatment and willing to incur higher costs. The presence of a carer influenced preferences. Outcome attributes were more important than process attributes but the latter were still valued. Thus, supporting self-management, for example by providing better information on pain may be a worthwhile endeavour. However, service provision may need to account for individual characteristics given the heterogeneity in preferences.

BACKGROUND: Prisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012. Study selection criteria were: Population: Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). INTERVENTION: Peer-based interventions Comparators: Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches. OUTCOMES: Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/ process outcomes; views of prison populations. STUDY DESIGNS: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349 .