Search

During the coronavirus pandemic, there have been significant challenges in the remote teaching and demonstration of experiments, especially those that require laboratory testing equipment. With a desire to give students a feel for our materials laboratory on open days and allow them to gain a deeper understanding of what materials science and engineering is about, we have designed an experiment focused on composite materials that can be performed remotely and without specialist equipment. This enabled students to experience a bend test sensorily through seeing, hearing and feeling it, creating a strong link to then being able to relate it to the pre-prepared experimental data taken in the laboratory. This fun, easy-to-run and engaging experiment allowed a shared experience and encouraged a discussion about students' observations, differences in results and implications of the bend strength of sandwich composites. We have found it not only works well universally by all ages but can be used with younger children to think about words such as 'stronger', 'stiffer' and 'flexible' and how materials can be different in different directions.

Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults and adolescents, using a natural experiment design. Methods: A 10‐year retrospective cohort study (2010–2020) using routinely collected NHS dental treatment claims data. Participants were patients aged 12 years and over, attending NHS primary dental care services in England (17.8 million patients). Using recorded residential locations, individuals exposed to drinking water with an optimal fluoride concentration (≥0.7 mg F/L) were matched to non‐exposed individuals using propensity scores. Number of NHS invasive dental treatments, DMFT and missing teeth were compared between groups using negative binomial regression. Total NHS dental treatment costs and cost per invasive dental treatment avoided were calculated. Results: Matching resulted in an analytical sample of 6.4 million patients. Predicted mean number of invasive NHS dental treatments (restorations 'fillings'/extractions) was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (5.4) than the non‐optimally fluoridated group (5.6) (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967, 0.971). Predicted mean DMFT was 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983, 0.985). There was no difference in the predicted mean number of missing teeth per person (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999, 1.003) and no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Optimal water fluoridation in England 2010–2020 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excludes initial set‐up costs). NHS dental treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients 2010–2020 were 5.5% lower, by £22.26 per person (95% CI ‐£21.43, −£23.09). Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation 2010–2020 resulted in very small positive health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals. Existing fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower NHS dental care utilization. This return should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and costs of a brief, group-delivered parenting intervention for families of children with eczema. Methods A randomized controlled trial design was used. Families attending the Queensland Children's Hospital and from the community (n  = 257) were assessed for eligibility (child 2–10 years, diagnosed with eczema, prescribed topical corticosteroids). Families who consented to participate (N  =   59) were assessed at baseline for clinician-rated eczema severity, parent-reported eczema symptom severity, and electronically-monitored topical corticosteroid adherence (primary outcomes); and parenting behavior, parents' self-efficacy and task performance when managing eczema, eczema-related child behavior problems, and child and parent quality of life (secondary outcomes). Families were randomized (1:1, unblinded) to intervention (n  =   31) or care-as-usual (n  =   28). The intervention comprised two, 2-hr Healthy Living Triple P group sessions (face-to-face/online) and 28 intervention families attended one/both sessions. All families were offered standardized eczema education. Families were reassessed at 4-weeks post-intervention and 6-month follow-up, with clinician-raters blinded to condition. Costs of intervention delivery were estimated. Results Multilevel modeling across assessment timepoints showed significant intervention effects for ineffective parenting (d  = .60), self-efficacy (d  = .74), task performance (d  = .81), and confidence with managing eczema-related child behavior (d  = .63), but not disease/symptom severity, treatment adherence or quality of life. Mean cost per participating family with parenting behavior (clinically) improved was $159. Conclusions Healthy Living Triple P is effective in reducing ineffective parenting practices and improving parents' self-efficacy and task performance when managing children's eczema and eczema-related behavior difficulties. There was no effect on disease/symptom severity, treatment adherence, or quality of life. Clinical Trial Registration ACTRN12618001332213 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most water fluoridation studies were conducted on children before the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes. There is a lack of evidence that can be applied to contemporary populations, particularly adolescents and adults. Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults, using a natural experiment design. Design: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected National Health Service dental claims (FP17) data. Setting: National Health Service primary dental care: general dental practices, prisons, community dental services, domiciliary settings, urgent/out-of-hours and specialised referral-only services. Participants: Dental patients aged 12 years and over living in England (n = 6,370,280). Intervention and comparison: Individuals exposed to drinking water with a fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were matched to non-exposed individuals on key characteristics using propensity scores. Outcome measures: Primary: number of National Health Service invasive dental treatments (restorations/'fillings' and extractions) received per person between 2010 and 2020. Secondary: decayed, missing and filled teeth, missing teeth, inequalities, cost effectiveness and return on investment. Data sources: National Health Service Business Services Authority dental claims data. Water quality monitoring data. Primary outcome: Predicted mean number of invasive dental treatments was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (incidence rate ratio 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971), a difference of −0.173 invasive dental treatments (95% CI −0.185 to −0.161). This magnitude of effect is smaller than what most stakeholders we engaged with (n = 50/54) considered meaningful. Secondary outcomes: Mean decayed, missing and filled teeth were 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group, with a difference of −0.212 decayed, missing and filled teeth (95% CI −0.229 to −0.194). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth per person (0.006, 95% CI −0.008 to 0.021). There was no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in treatments received or missing teeth; however, decayed, missing and filled teeth data did not demonstrate a typical inequalities gradient. Optimal water fluoridation in England in 2010–20 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excluding original setup costs). Mean National Health Service treatment costs for fluoridated patients 2010–20 were 5.5% lower per person, by £22.26 (95% CI −£23.09 to −£21.43), and patients paid £7.64 less in National Health Service dental charges per person (2020 prices). Limitations: Pragmatic, observational study with potential for non-differential errors of misclassification in fluoridation assignment and outcome measurement and residual and/or unmeasured confounding. Decayed, missing and filled teeth data have not been validated. Water fluoridation cost estimates are based on existing programmes between 2010 and 2020, and therefore do not include the potentially significant capital investment required for new programmes. Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects, which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence of a reduction in social inequalities. Existing water fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower National Health Service treatment costs. These relatively small savings should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. Future work: National Health Service dental data are a valuable resource for research. Further validation and measures to improve quality and completeness are warranted. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary: Fluoride is a natural mineral that prevents tooth decay. It is added to some drinking water and toothpastes to improve dental health. Water with fluoride added is known as 'optimally fluoridated'. Most research on water fluoridation was carried out before fluoride was added to toothpastes in the 1970s and only included children. We wanted to know if water fluoridation still produced large reductions in tooth decay, now that decay levels are much lower because of fluoride in toothpaste. We also wanted to look at its effect on adults and teenagers. Dental patients we spoke to told us they worried about needing treatment with the 'drill', or 'injection', losing their teeth and paying for their dental care. To see if water fluoridation helped with these concerns, we compared the National Health Service dental records of 6.4 million adults and teenagers who received optimally fluoridated or non-optimally fluoridated water in England between 2010 and 2020. We found water fluoridation made a very small difference to each person. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of NHS fillings and extractions was 3% lower per person for those who received optimally fluoridated water. We found no difference in the number of teeth lost per person and no strong sign that fluoridation reduced differences in dental health between rich and poor areas. Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of optimal water fluoridation was £10.30 per person (not including setup costs). National Health Service dental patients who received optimally fluoridated water cost the National Health Service £22.26 (5.5%) less and paid £7.64 (2%) less per person in National Health Service dental charges over the 10 years. The benefits we found are much smaller than in the past, when toothpastes did not contain fluoride. The cost to set up a new water fluoridation programme can be high. Communities may need to consider if these smaller benefits would still outweigh the costs. Scientific summary: Background: There is a lack of contemporary evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation in populations who are also using fluoride toothpastes and have significantly lower levels of decay than when most of the research on water fluoridation was carried out. In their 2002 review of water fluoridation, the UK Medical Research Council identified several priority areas for future research, in particular: the effect of water fluoridation on the dental health of adults the effects of fluoridation on health and well-being beyond the usual measures of decayed, missing or filled teeth the economic impacts of water fluoridation how the effects of water fluoridation vary with social class. Conducting research on the effects of water fluoridation in adults involves significant methodological challenges. This has resulted in a paucity of evidence and recommendations for research that have not been addressed in 20 years. The present study has been designed to contribute to the evidence base in a pragmatic and cost-efficient way, using routinely collected NHS dental claims data. During our initial public engagement work, patients and the public told us that preventing dental treatment, particularly 'the drill' or 'injection', was a key impact that they would hope water fluoridation would produce. Other impacts were not losing teeth to extraction and avoiding costly dental charges. This feedback is reflected in our choice of primary and secondary outcome measures. Aim: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health. Primary objective: Impact of water fluoridation on NHS invasive dental treatments (fillings, extractions). Secondary objectives: Impact on oral health [number of teeth and caries experience, missing and filled teeth (DMFT)]. Impact on social inequalities. Cost effectiveness and return on investment (ROI). Study inclusion criteria: Adults and adolescents aged 12 years and over who had attended an NHS dental practice in England within the last 10 years. Adolescents were included in the study cohort because they are likely to have all of their permanent, adult teeth. Patient confirmed as a unique individual using the combination of NHS Business Service Authority (BSA) identifier (initial, surname, gender, date of birth) and NHS number. Study exclusion criteria: Individuals who did not have at least two episodes of dental attendance within the 10-year observation period. The reason for this was to provide at least two data points on location of residence (to assign fluoridation exposure). Cohort setting: The study population data set was supplied by NHS BSA , which processes payment claims for NHS for dentists. The NHS BSA data retention period is 10 years. National Health Service primary dental care is delivered in a range of settings and types of services, including: general dental practices (high street practices) prison dental services community dental services (special care referral service, which treats patients with additional needs, including medical conditions, disabilities, homelessness or drug use) domiciliary settings (home visits for housebound patients) urgent/out-of-hours services for patients without a regular dentist specialised referral-only services such as sedation or oral surgery. Data on care delivered in all of the above services are collected by NHS BSA. Selection of the study population: Selection of the study population was carried out on 21 October 2020, by NHS BSA. Individual dental treatment claim entries for England and Wales were screened for linkage and selection by NHS BSA in the following order: Identifiable data: Withdrawn or 'no information' claims (FP17s) were dropped. Claims with no 1 : 1 match between NHS number and NHS BSA ID were dropped. Claims containing only orthodontic care were dropped. Patients whose NHS number was on 'NHS national data opt-out list' were dropped. Anonymised data: Patients who had attended only once were dropped. Patients aged under 12 years were dropped. Patients whose first recorded address was not in England were dropped. Patients whose first course of treatment was prior to 22 November 2010 were dropped. The study population data set, securely transferred to the University of Manchester, included anonymised data on 17,855,239 unique individuals. Exposure assignment: Water fluoride sample data (mg F/l) were obtained from water suppliers in England under the Environmental Information Regulations (2004) and converted from water supply zones to lower super output areas (LSOAs) using mapping in statistical software 'R'. This resulted in a record of annual mean water fluoride concentrations by LSOA for every year between 2010 and 2020. Individuals within the study population data set were then assigned an individual water fluoride exposure (mg F/l) by combining their residential history (recorded in the NHS BSA dental claims data set) with the annual concentration of fluoride in the drinking water of the LSOAs they lived in between 2010 and 2020. Individuals exposed to drinking water with a grand mean fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were assigned to the 'optimally fluoridated' group, and those with a grand mean of < 0.7 mg F/l were assigned to the 'sub/non-optimally fluoridated' group. Propensity score matching: Individuals in the optimally fluoridated group were matched to individuals in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group using propensity scores. The baseline characteristics used to create the propensity scores were selected using subject matter knowledge and theory to include all hypothesised confounders and important outcome predictors. To inform the selection of these variables, causal assumptions were made explicit using directed acyclic graphs. Baseline characteristics for propensity score estimation and matching were based on data recorded at the patient's first course of treatment: sex age ethnicity deprivation decile NHS exemption status rural–urban classification number of units of dental activities (UDAs) commissioned per person with the patient's local authority of residence dental practice contract type dental practice deprivation decile. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and matching was carried out using three specifications of nearest neighbour matching (one-to-one, variable ratio and variable ratio with a 0.25 calliper). The resulting matched data set which best met our pre-specified criteria regarding overall sample size, balance on baseline characteristics and ability to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated group was taken forwards for further analysis. Analysis of health effects: The effect of optimal water fluoridation on primary and secondary clinical outcomes was estimated using negative binomial regression models, including matching weights and using cluster-robust standard errors. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the mean number of invasive dental treatments received, the mean number of DMFTs and the mean number of missing teeth by fluoridation group. To determine whether there was a differential effect of water fluoridation according to deprivation, we included patient deprivation decile [Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015] as an interaction term. 'Clinical' relevance of primary outcome: We engaged with 54 public and professional stakeholders from across the UK through 3 online workshops to explore views on what might be considered a relevant/practically significant effect of optimal water fluoridation on our primary outcome. We identified a wide range of views and some suggestions that dentists felt smaller reductions were meaningful, compared to non-dentists, but most contributors felt a reduction of at least one invasive NHS dental treatment per person over 10 years would be needed to be considered meaningful (a 16% relative reduction in the workshop scenario). Health economic evaluation: The health economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness and a ROI analysis. The time horizon was 2010–20, and the perspective was public sector payors [NHS, Public Health England (PHE) and local authorities]. Operating and capital costs of water fluoridation for England were supplied by PHE for the financial years 2013–9, with mean annual costs used for 2010–2. All costs are reported in 2020 prices. National Health Service dental care utilisation and patient charges were contained within the study population data set provided by NHS BSA , and an average UDA price for England supplied by NHS BSA [under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)] was used to calculate NHS costs. Differences in costs between patients from optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups were estimated using a generalised linear model (GLM) with a log-link and a gamma distribution to account for right-skewed cost data. Cost effectiveness was based on the primary study outcome, assessed as the additional cost per avoided episode of invasive dental treatment [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)]. We also calculated total NHS dental charges paid by patients in the optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups. Water fluoridation cannot be provided on an individual basis, therefore per-patient cost effectiveness and ROI estimates were extrapolated from our sample to the estimated population of regular users of NHS dental services using a range of scenarios. Results: The study population data set (the full cohort) supplied by NHS BSA included records relating to 17,855,239 unique individuals. After propensity score matching (using nearest neighbour, one-to-three variable ratio), the matched cohort contained data on 6,370,280 individuals: 4,777,710 in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group and 1,592,570 in the optimally fluoridated group. Primary objective: The rate of invasive dental treatments in the optimally fluoridated group was 3% lower than that of the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971). There was a predicted mean difference of 0.173 fewer invasive dental treatments per person (95% CI 0.185 to 0.161) in the optimally fluoridated group compared to the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group. During our stakeholder engagement work, only 4 of 54 contributors considered this magnitude of reduction to be meaningful. Secondary objectives: Oral health: Mean DMFT in the optimally fluoridated group was 2% lower than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983 to 0.985). There was a predicted mean difference of 0.212 fewer DMFTs (95% CI 0.229 fewer to 0.194 fewer) in the optimally fluoridated group compared to the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group. We found no significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth between the optimally fluoridated group and the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999 to 1.003). The negative binomial model predicted a mean difference of 0.006 more missing teeth in the fluoridated group, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of no effect (95% CI 0.008 fewer to 0.021 more). Effect of water fluoridation on social inequalities: In all deciles, the predicted number of invasive treatments was lower in the optimally fluoridated group than the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group, but the size of the reductions was very small. The largest predicted reduction of 0.337 fewer invasive dental treatments per person (95% CI 0.371 fewer to 0.302 fewer) was in the most deprived decile (IMD 1), a relative reduction of 5.3%. The relationship between patient deprivation and DMFT was unclear and did not demonstrate a social inequality gradient in the expected direction. Therefore, we are unable to conclude whether water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in DMFT. Small differences were evident in each decile, but the direction of effect was not consistent. Small differences in the number of missing teeth per person in the optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups were evident in each decile of deprivation, but the direction of effect was not consistent. Overall, we could find no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced socioeconomic disparities in oral health in adult and adolescent users of NHS dental services. Health economic results: Water fluoridation costs: Total expenditure on water fluoridation between 2010 and 2019 was estimated to be £46,791,388. The cost of optimal water fluoridation per person over 10 years was estimated to be £10.30. No new water fluoridation programmes were commissioned between 2010 and 2020; therefore, our cost estimates for water fluoridation do not include setup costs, which are highly site-specific and can be significant. National Health Service dental treatment and patient charges: In the GLM , the marginal effects estimate revealed a saving in NHS treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients over the study period of £22.26 per person (95% CI £21.43 to £23.09). This represents a relative reduction in costs to the NHS of 5.5% per person between 2010 and 2020. Patients in the optimally fluoridated group paid £7.64 less (2%) in total NHS dental charges than patients in the non-optimally fluoridated group between 2010 and 2020. Population-level cost effectiveness and return on investment: Water fluoridation is a whole-population intervention, which cannot be implemented on a per-person basis. In terms of cost effectiveness and ROI, it is important to consider the potential size of the population to whom our within-sample (per person) findings may apply. In the scenario thought to be most likely by our steering committee (that 62.9% of the population aged 12 years can be expected to use NHS dental services at least twice in 10 years), we estimate that: The cost to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) was £94.55. The predicted ROI for water fluoridation in England between November 2010 and October 2020 was estimated to be £16,884,595 (a 36% return on the investment). Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Slightly lower dental service utilisation produced a positive ROI during the period of observation, but it must be remembered that the cost estimates for water fluoridation did not include the initial set-up of the programmes. Where new capital investment in water fluoridation is required, the estimated project costs should be evaluated against the estimated savings contained within this report and the projected lifespan of the infrastructure. Whether the case for water fluoridation programmes can be based solely on a predicted ROI rather than meaningful health improvements may need to be considered by stakeholders. Recommendations for research: NHS primary care dental data are a potentially valuable resource for research, surveillance and epidemiology. Consideration should be given as to how to develop this resource further. Suggestions include: commissioning enhanced data collection through a network of dental providers (similar to medical G.P. Clinical Practice Research Datalink network); mandatory use of NHS numbers, recording the reason for treatment (caries, periodontal disease, trauma, repair of old restoration); steps to increase the completeness of patient ethnicity data and validation of the DMFT data. Routinely collected water quality monitoring data should be made publicly available. A central, annually updated database of water fluoride concentrations (mg F/l) at a small area level is required to support future research and monitoring of water fluoridation. To broaden the evidence base for triangulation, the effect of water fluoridation on the dental health of adults should be investigated in any future national dental epidemiology surveys. To determine if the estimated cost to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) represents good value for money, further work is required to identify a threshold level for 'good value' for this outcome. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The letter discusses concerns about a specific acupuncture trial on shoulder pain. The authors argue that the trial did not effectively control for placebo effects and did not compare acupuncture to a placebo treatment. They suggest that the trial unintentionally included active components in the sham treatments, potentially underestimating the effects of acupuncture. The authors also highlight the need for better descriptions of sham acupuncture techniques and pre-clinical studies to assess their lack of specific effects. Overall, the letter raises important considerations for interpreting the results of acupuncture trials that use sham acupuncture as a control treatment. [Extracted from the article]

In most countries, the demand for integrated care for people with chronic diseases is increasing as the population ages. This demand requires a fundamental shift of health-care systems towards more integrated service delivery models. To achieve this shift in China, the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the Chinese government proposed a tiered health-care delivery system in accordance with a people-centred integrated care model. The approach was pioneered in Luohu district of Shenzhen city from 2015 to 2017 as a template for practice. In September 2017, China's health ministry introduced this approach to people-centred integrated care to the entire country. We describe the features of the Luohu model in relation to the core action areas and implementation strategies proposed and we summarize data from an evaluation of the first two years of the programme. We discuss the challenges faced during implementation and the lessons learnt from it for other health-care systems. We consider how to improve collaboration between institutions, how to change the population's behaviour about using community health services as the first point of contact and how to manage resources effectively to avoid budget deficits. Finally, we outline next steps of the Luohu model and its potential application to strengthen health care in other urban health-care systems.Dans la plupart des pays, la demande de soins integres pour les personnes atteintes de maladies chroniques augmente a mesure que la population vieillit. Cette demande necessite une reorientation majeure des systemes de soins de sante vers des dispositifs de prestation de services plus integres. Pour effectuer cette reorientation en Chine, l'Organisation mondiale de la Sante, la Banque mondlale et le gouvernement chlnois ont propose un systeme de soins de sante a plusieurs niveaux selon un dlspositif de soins integres axes sur 1'etre humain. Cette approche a ete utilisee pour Ia premiere fois dans le distria de Luohu de la ville de Shenzhen de 2015 a 2017 en tant que modele de pratique. En septembre 2017, le ministere chinois de la Sante a applique a l'ensemble du pays ce dispositif de soins integres axes sur l'etre humain. Nous decrivons les caracteristiques du modele de Luohu par rapport aux principaux domaines d'action et aux strategies de mise en ceuvre proposees et nous resumons les donnees extraites d'une evaluation des deux premieres annees du programme. Nous examinons les difficultes rencontrees lors de la mise en ceuvre et les lecons tirees de ees difficultes pour d'autres systemes de soins de sante. Nous reflechissons aux moyens d'ameliorer la collaboration entre les institutions, de changer le comportement de la population concernant l'utilisation des services de sante des collectives comme premier point de contact et de gerer efncacement les ressources pour eviter les deficits budgetaires. Enfin, nous decrivons les prochaines etapes a suivre dans le cadre du modele de Luohu et son application potentielle pour renforcer les soins de sante dans d'autres systemes urbains de soins de sante.En la mayoria de los paises, la demanda de atencion integrada para las personas con enfermedades cronicas aumenta a medida que la poblacion envejece. Esta demanda requiere un cambio fundamental de los sistemas de atencion sanitaria hacia modelos de prestacion de servicios mas integrados. Para lograr este cambio en China, la Organizacion Mundial de la Salud, el Banco Mundial y el gobierno chino propusieron un sistema escalonado de prestacion de servicios sanitarios de acuerdo con un modelo de atencion integrada centrada en las personas. El enfoque se introdujo en el distrito de Luohu de la ciudad de Shenzhen de 2015 a 2017 como modelo para la practica. En septiembre de 2017, el Ministerio de Salud de China introdujo este enfoque de atencion integrada centrada en las personas en todo el pais. Se describen las caracteristicas del modelo de Luohu en relacion con las areas centrales de accion y las estrategias de implementation propuestas y se resumen los datos de una evaluacion de los dos primeros anos del programa. Se exponen los desafios enfrentados durante la implementacion y las lecciones aprendidas de la misma para otros sistemas de atencion sanitaria. Se considera como mejorar la colaboracion entre las instituciones, como cambiar el comportamiento de la poblacion sobre el uso de los servicios sanitarios comunitarios como primer punto de contacto y como gestionar eficazmente los recursos para evitar deficits de presupuesto. Por ultimo, se esbozaron los proximos pasos del modelo de Luohu y su posible aplicacion para fortalecer la atencion sanitaria en otros sistemas urbanos de atencion sanitaria., IntroductionOn 1 September 2017, China's health ministry introduced a new approach to people-centred integrated care to the entire country. (1) Called the Luohu model, the approach was pioneered in Luohu [...]

Simple Summary: When sham acupuncture was set as a control in previous acupuncture clinical trials, the sham procedure was conducted either at the same points that were used for the verum acupuncture group or at nonindicated points. The network meta-analysis according to needling point location used in sham acupuncture for cancer-related pain revealed no significant difference in pain severity between verum acupuncture and sham acupuncture using the same points as verum acupuncture. However, verum acupuncture significantly improved the pain severity compared to sham acupuncture at sham points. Sham acupuncture needling at the same points as verum acupuncture is not a true placebo due to the lack of consideration for acupuncture point specificity. Numerous acupuncture studies have been conducted on cancer-related pain; however, its efficacy compared to sham acupuncture remains controversial. We confirmed whether the outcome of acupuncture differs according to the needling points of sham acupuncture for cancer-related pain. We searched 10 databases on 23 May 2023 to screen acupuncture trials using sham acupuncture or waiting list as controls for cancer-related pain. Sham acupuncture was classified into two types, depending on whether the needling was applied at the same locations as verum acupuncture (SATV) or not (SATS). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed on the basis of a frequentist approach to assess pain severity. Eight studies (n = 574 participants) were included in the review, seven of which (n = 527 participants) were included in the NMA. The pain severity was not significantly different between SATV and verum acupuncture, but verum acupuncture significantly improved pain severity compared to SATS. The risk of bias affecting the comparisons between the verum and sham acupuncture was generally low. Previous acupuncture trials for cancer-related pain showed differing outcomes of sham and verum acupuncture, depending on the needling points of sham acupuncture. The application of SATV cannot be considered a true placebo, which leads to an underestimation of the efficacy of verum acupuncture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Choosing between reusable instruments (RIs) and disposable instruments (DIs) for dental care provision requires a careful consideration of costs and their contributing factors, alongside other choice criteria. This study aimed to assess the current use of instruments in the West Moreton Oral Health Service (WMOHS) in Queensland, Australia, with a broader goal of informing future practice in this and comparable organizations. Methods: A cost model was developed reflecting costs arising from procurement, reprocessing and disposal, depending on the RI and DI composition of instrumentation. The current practice in WMOHS was compared to modular (RI‐only and DI‐only) strategies by considering four standard instrument sets (examination, simple extraction, surgical extraction, restoration) and the annual use of instruments in the organization at large. The use of resources (water, electricity) and emissions (waste) were quantified for each strategy. The robustness of findings was explored across a range of scenarios that involved varying instrument prices, lifespans, factors impacting on the cost of reprocessing (labour, water, energy), the cost of waste disposal and couriering. Results: At the organization level, the current mix of instruments (A$1.28 m per year) was 4% more costly than the lower cost, RI‐only alternative (A$1.23 m). However, with lower DI prices or higher labour costs current practice would become the lowest cost option. Results for specific instrument sets varied by service type. DI‐only offered the lowest cost option for oral examinations (A$6.29), and the current practice of mixed instrumentation for simple extractions (A$16.56). RI‐only sets were less costly in more resource intensive procedures such as surgical extractions (A$40.19) and restorations (A$43.83). In terms of environmental impacts, the use of instruments based on current practice required 37% of water and energy use of an RI‐only alternative and generated 36% waste of the DI‐only alternative. Conclusions: Reusable instruments are generally less costly than DIs, but for specific instrument sets the outcome depends on the type of procedure. In some circumstances, mixed instrumentation can provide the lowest cost alternative. While the WMOHS instrument mix used in current practice does not minimize cost for the provider, it may be justified in light of operational risks, logistics and uncertainty regarding cost factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article delves into the challenges of resource scarcity in healthcare, focusing on the implementation time of clinical guidelines and its implications for optimal resource utilization. Topics include the limitations of measuring implementation time of clinical guidelines, the distinction between finite resources and scarcity, and the critique of the 'time needed to treat' concept in the context of resource allocation in healthcare.

Background: Providing cultural education to health professionals is essential in improving the quality of care and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. This study reports the evaluation of a novel training workshop used as an intervention to improve communication with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients of persistent pain services. Methods: In this single-arm intervention study, health professionals undertook a one-day workshop, which included cultural capability and communication skills training based on a clinical yarning framework. The workshop was delivered across three adult persistent pain clinics in Queensland. At the end of the training, participants completed a retrospective pre/post evaluation questionnaire (5 points Likert scale, 1 = very low to 5 = very high), to rate their perceived importance of communication training, their knowledge, ability and confidence to communicate effectively. Participants also rated their satisfaction with the training and suggested improvements for future trainings. Results: Fifty-seven health professionals were trained (N = 57/111; 51% participation rate), 51 completed an evaluation questionnaire (n = 51/57; 90% response rate). Significant improvements in the perceived importance of communication training, knowledge, ability and confidence to effectively communicate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients were identified (p < 0.001). The greatest increase was in the perceived confidence pre-training mean of 2.96 (SE = 0.11) to the post-training mean of 4.02 (SE = 0.09). Conclusion: This patient-centred communication training, delivered through a novel model that combines cultural capability and the clinical yarning framework applied to the pain management setting, was highly acceptable and significantly improved participants' perceived competence. This method is transferrable to other health system sectors seeking to train their clinical workforce with culturally sensitive communication skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]