Search

A letter to the editor is presented which discusses the unfair situation of the mouth cancer patients compared to the other forms of cancers regarding the financial burden.

Being revered as deities in some religions of the world, non-human primates (NHPs) often share the same space as humans. Such coexistence and interactions with humans, especially around places of worship, have been known to cause significant changes to the behavior and diet of the NHPs in India. Moreover, the interface may also create an opportunity for zoonotic spillover, similar to the majority of newly emerging or re-emerging infections that are found to originate from animal sources. These include the SARS COV-2 virus responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic; a catastrophic "One Health" crisis; that has highlighted the interconnections between the health of humans, animals, and the environment. Religious beliefs could potentially influence perceptions, actions, and subsequent One Health outcomes resulting from human-animal interaction, which could impact human and animal welfare. Greater insight in this area could provide a better understanding of the complex relationships between humans and NHPs; that may play an important role in mitigating conflict as well as the spillover of zoonotic disease at the human-NHP interface., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The aim of this article is to explore the impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on primate-related conservation work. The withdrawal of primatologists and conservation staff from field research can lead to a number of detrimental effects not just on conservation but also on local communities in low- and middle-income countries. Inequalities in access to health and financial insecurities may be drivers for the illegal wildlife trade and the lack of tourism and research activity may allow poachers to work with greater ease. The paper also looks at how conservation organizations and research bodies should modify their field protocols by developing robust occupational health policies that will not only make field work safer but also support local staff as they are likely to face the greatest threats to their physical health, psychological health, and economic loss from COVID-19. By adopting a One Health approach that considers the complex interactions between human and primate health, researchers will be able to find new ways of working not only to protect primates but understand how they adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

There is growing evidence that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups in the UK are at increased risk of death from coronavirus (COVID-19), with Black Afro-Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations being particularly at risk. Although the reasons are unclear, it is likely to be a combination of cultural and socioeconomic, as well as the higher prevalence of co-morbidities such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, raised body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes in these populations. The NHS is advising that frontline staff of BAME origin should be risk-assessed regarding their safety in working in clinical areas which are at risk of COVID-19. There is, however, little evidence on the risks posed to the BAME community within the dental profession. This paper outlines some of the challenges faced, and advocates that urgent action needs to be taken to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 and ensure BAME staff safety upon returning to work.

Overwhelming evidence shows that overconsumption of meat is bad for human and environmental health and that moving towards a more plant-based diet is more sustainable. For instance, replacing beef with beans in the US could free up 42% of US cropland and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 334 mmt, accomplishing 75% of the 2020 carbon reduction target. We summarise the evidence on how overconsumption of meat affects social, environmental and economic sustainability. We highlight the social, environmental and economic effectiveness of a range of dietary interventions that have been tested to date. Because meat eating is embedded within complex cultural, economic, and political systems, dietary shifts to reduce overconsumption are unlikely to happen quickly and a suite of sustained, context-specific interventions is likely to work better than brief, one-dimensional approaches. We conclude with key actions needed by global leaders in politics, industry and the health sector that could help aide this dietary transformation to benefit people and the planet., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if paramedics can safely transfer interfacility critically ill adult patients and to determine the prevalence and types of adverse events when paramedics lead interfacility critical care transfers., Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched from 1990 up to February 2016. Eligibility criteria were adult patients (16 years and over), interfacility transfer (between two health care facilities), quantitative or qualitative description of adverse events, and a paramedic as the primary care provider or the sole health care provider., Results: Seven publications had paramedics as the sole health care provider conducting interfacility critical care transfers. All seven studies were observational studies published in the English language. The study duration ranged from 14 months to 10 years. The frequency of adverse events seen by paramedics in interfacility transfers ranges from 5.1% to 18%., Conclusion: There is a gap in literature on the safety and adverse events in interfacility transfers by paramedics. The prevalence of in-transit adverse events is well established; however, because the published literature is lacking longitudinal monitoring of patients and only reporting in-transit events, we believe that further research in this area might provide the basis of paramedics safety in interfacility transfers., (Copyright © 2017 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Dentofacial emergencies are a common presentation to the emergency department (ED) but there is little recent data on physicians' knowledge, confidence and attitudes in handling these cases., Method: A questionnaire was administered to 103 ED physicians. The sample was primarily drawn from London hospitals as well a smaller contribution from around the UK and included physicians with a range of experience and at different grades., Results: The majority of the 102 participants (76.5%) did not receive any formal training in managing dentofacial emergencies. The percentage of participants who were happy to manage common dentofacial emergencies is as follows: dental trauma (20.4%); major facial trauma (39.8%); interpreting facial X-rays (68.0%); and facial suturing (85.4%). When questioned 12.1% of the participants felt that ED physicians should be responsible for managing dental emergencies compared to 22.4% who felt that ED physicians should manage maxillofacial emergencies. Only 3.9% of the participants would opt to be treated by an ED doctor in the event of them presenting to the ED with a dental injury. The remaining 72.5% would prefer to be seen by a maxillofacial surgeon, 23.5% by a dentist and none of the participants opted to be seen by the emergency nurse practitioner., Conclusion: ED physicians do not feel confident in managing some dentofacial emergencies. This may be attributed to a lack of training in this area as well as exposure to these types of emergencies. There is a need for greater awareness, validated guidelines and training resources for ED physicians to treat dentofacial emergencies as well more research in this field of emergency medicine., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)