Search

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a highly prevalent, global problem with far?reaching implications for health and wellbeing.[sup.1] IPV is defined by the World Health Organization as ?behaviour by an intimate [...], : Objectives: To describe current intimate partner violence (IPV) education delivery to Australian medical students, and the barriers influencing this delivery, including any changes in the quantity and nature of IPV education delivery since 2010. Methods: A cross?sectional analysis of Australian medical schools providing primary medical degrees was conducted by identifying one staff member, from each of the disciplines of general practice, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, and where necessary, medical education, to complete an online survey. Results: Sixteen of the 17 medical schools provided IPV education, typically within the general practice or obstetrics and gynaecology curriculum. The median contact hour range was 3?6 hours. Key barriers included time constraints and resource shortages. The overall response rate was 89.5%. Conclusion: Most Australian medical students receive limited IPV education and there is substantial variability in the depth and content of education. The proportion of medical schools providing education and the number of contact hours has only slightly increased. Implications for public health: Effective identification and management of IPV by healthcare providers can significantly improve health outcomes for victims and training in IPV may improve attitudes, knowledge and clinical skills. The need to provide more consistent and comprehensive IPV training for future doctors remains, and it is feasible to include integrated IPV education programs within a crowded medical curriculum.

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to assess patients' postoperative discomfort after implantations according to the All‐on‐4 concept with and without using Zygoma implants. Material and methods: Three treatment groups were formed for this prospective study: All‐on‐4 rehabilitation in the maxilla (group 1, N = 25), All‐on‐4 rehabilitation in the maxilla using at least two Zygoma implants (group 2, N = 25), and All‐on‐4 rehabilitation in the mandible (group 3, N = 20). Principal outcome parameters were postoperative pain (100 mm VAS) and perceived swelling (100 mm VAS). Also, the use of analgesics was documented. Results: The worst postoperative pain of 21.3 (SD 18.9) VAS was observed in group 2, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (mixed ANOVA p =.791). The postoperative total intake of painkillers was significantly higher in group 2 than in the other groups (p <.001). On postoperative day 28, the mean pain scores in all groups declined to values below 5 VAS. Postoperative perceived swelling in group 2 was significantly more severe than it was in group 1 and 3 (p <.001). Conclusions: The use of Zygoma implants in All‐on‐4 surgical interventions had an essential effect on postoperative swelling, but less so on postoperative pain. The slightly increased, but statistically not significantly different postoperative pain in group 2 was compensated by an overall higher postoperative intake of painkillers compared to the other groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]