Search

This systematic review assesses weight loss interventions in young adults (18–25 years), who are vulnerable to weight gain. This age group experience critical life course points (leaving home for higher studies or job, pregnancy, cohabitation) and develop/establish lifestyle and behavioural patterns making this an opportune intervention period. Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsychINFO and Cochrane Library were searched (1980 to March 2008). All trials and cohort studies with control groups that assessed weight loss interventions in this specific age group were included finally identifying 14 studies. Before and after comparison of behavioural/motivational interventions (−2.40 kg; 95% CI −5.4 to 0.6) and combination interventions (−2.96; 95% CI −4.4 to −1.5) consistently showed weight loss. Behavioural/motivational interventions increased self-efficacy, the desire to control weight, boosted self-esteem, and increased satisfaction with body areas and appearance. Interventions also showed improvements in HDL cholesterol, insulin, glucose and maximum oxygen uptake. However, recruitment to participation in interventions was a barrier for this age group with small sample sizes and short-term interventions. There may be gender differences in preference to participation in certain type of interventions. Further research to understand attitudes towards healthy lifestyle and preferences of interventions is needed to develop suitable interventions for this vulnerable age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on bacterial microleakage and pulpal inflammation in experimental cavities. A retrospective analysis, based upon experimental cavities prepared in ferret and human teeth was carried out. There is evidence, therefore, from these data in both ferret and human teeth that bacteria which populate the interface of material and cavity wall are mainly responsible for pulpal inflammation observed beneath cavities filled with various test materials, at least during the 4 week period following their insertion.

The use of process measures in the assessment of the quality of care has been neglected of late. The outcomes movement has gathered momentum and process measurement appears to have been left trailing in the wake. Yet process measures can be sensitive indicators of the quality of care and have many advantages over outcomes. They are readily measured and can easily be interpreted; comparisons are not essential (as they are with outcomes monitoring) but even if used they are little bothered by the case-mix arguments which bedevil outcomes assessment. Further, the direct measurement of process can directly indicate deficiencies of care which need to be remedied. Finally, there are some aspects of care which are only amenable to study using measures of process. These benefits come at a price: first there must be good evidence that links the processes of care to desirable outcomes. This paper explores the advantages of measuring processes of care in quality assessment and advocates a balanced approach to the process vs. outcome debate.

Interest in outcomes is universal. To patients, good outcomes represent their highest hopes for therapy; to health care professionals, good outcomes are the desired end-point of a complex web of care. More recently, politicians and health care managers too have shifted their emphasis away from health service activity and towards what is termed 'health gain'. The rise of the outcomes movement appears irresistible. However, the difficulties in interpreting outcomes data will not go away. Outcomes measured using routine data are subject to numerous biases and many practical difficulties. Despite recent statistical, methodological and technological advances, comparisons of outcomes at best provide us with weak evidence of either the effectiveness or the quality of health care. And sometimes they may frankly mislead. The apparent intuitiveness of outcomes monitoring has broad public appeal. But enthusiasm for outcomes needs to be tempered with a clear understanding of their limitations.