BACKGROUND: Oral hygiene care following stroke is important as the mouth can act as a reservoir for opportunistic infections that can lead to aspirational pneumonia.
DESIGN: A national cross-sectional survey was conducted in Malaysia among public hospitals where specialist stroke rehabilitation care is provided.
METHODS: All (16) hospitals were invited to participate, and site visits were conducted. A standardised questionnaire was employed to determine nurses' oral health knowledge for stroke care and existing clinical practices for oral hygiene care. Variations in oral health knowledge and clinical practices for oral hygiene care were examined.
RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 806 nurses across 13 hospitals. Oral health knowledge scores varied among the nurses; their mean score was 3.7 (SD 1.1) out of a possible 5.0. Approximately two-thirds (63.6%, n = 513) reported that some form of "mouth cleaning" was performed for stroke patients routinely. However, only a third (38.3%, n = 309) reported to perform or assist with the clinical practice of oral hygiene care daily. Their oral health knowledge of stroke care was associated with clinical practices for oral hygiene care (p
METHODS: Clinical audit learning was introduced in Year 3 of a 5-year curriculum for dental undergraduates. During classroom activities, students were briefed on clinical audit, selected their audit topics in groups of 5 or 6 students, and prepared and presented their audit protocols. One chosen topic was RCT, in which 3 different cohorts of Year 3 students conducted retrospective audits of patients' records in 2012, 2014 and 2015 for their compliance with recommended record keeping criteria and their performance in RCT. Students were trained by and calibrated against an endodontist (κ ≥ 0.8). After each audit, the findings were reported in class, and recommendations were made for improvement in performance of RCT and record keeping. Students' compliance with published guidelines was presented and their RCT performances in each year were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Overall compliance with of record keeping guidelines was 44.1% in 2012, 79.6% in 2014 and 94.6% in 2015 (P = .001). In the 2012 audit, acceptable extension, condensation and the absence of mishap were observed in 72.4, 75.7% and 91.5%; in the 2014 audit, 95.1%, 64.8% and 51.4%; and in 2015 audit, 96.4%, 82.1% and 92.8% of cases, respectively. In 2015, 76.8% of root canal fillings met all 3 technical quality criteria when compared to 48.6% in 2014 and 44.7% in 2012 (P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Clinical audit-feedback cycle is an effective educational tool for improving dental undergraduates' compliance with record keeping and performance in the technical quality of RCT.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with normal ejection fraction and 16 patients with reduced ejection fraction were compared with 20 healthy individuals. Phase-contrast MRI was used to assess intraventricular flow variables and speckle-tracking echocardiography to assess myocardial strain and left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. Infarct size was acquired using delayed-enhancement MRI.
RESULTS: The results obtained showed no significant differences in intraventricular flow variables between the healthy group and the patients with normal ejection fraction group, whereas considerable reductions in kinetic energy (KE) fluctuation index, E' (P<0.001) and vortex KE (P=0.003) were found in the patients with reduced ejection fraction group. In multivariate analysis, only vortex KE and infarct size were significantly related to LV ejection fraction (P<0.001); furthermore, vortex KE was correlated negatively with energy dissipation, energy dissipation index (r=-0.44, P=0.021).
CONCLUSION: This study highlights that flow energetic indices have limited applicability as early predictors of LV progressive dysfunction, whereas vortex KE could be an alternative to LV performance.
METHODS: We analysed Demographic and Health Survey data on tobacco use collected from large nationally representative samples of men and women in 54 LMICs. We estimated the weighted prevalence of any current tobacco use (including smokeless tobacco) in each country for 4 educational groups and 4 wealth groups. We calculated absolute and relative measures of inequality, that is, the slope index of inequality (SII) and relative index of inequality (RII), which take into account the distribution of prevalence across all education and wealth groups and account for population size. We also calculated the aggregate SII and RII for low-income (LIC), lower-middle-income (lMIC) and upper-middle-income (uMIC) countries as per World Bank classification.
FINDINGS: Male tobacco use was highest in Bangladesh (70.3%) and lowest in Sao Tome (7.4%), whereas female tobacco use was highest in Madagascar (21%) and lowest in Tajikistan (0.22%). Among men, educational inequalities varied widely between countries, but aggregate RII and SII showed an inverse trend by country wealth groups. RII was 3.61 (95% CI 2.83 to 4.61) in LICs, 1.99 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.38) in lMIC and 1.82 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.67) in uMIC. Wealth inequalities among men varied less between countries, but RII and SII showed an inverse pattern where RII was 2.43 (95% CI 2.05 to 2.88) in LICs, 1.84 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.21) in lMICs and 1.67 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.42) in uMICs. For educational inequalities among women, the RII varied much more than SII varied between the countries, and the aggregate RII was 14.49 (95% CI 8.87 to 23.68) in LICs, 3.05 (95% CI 1.44 to 6.47) in lMIC and 1.58 (95% CI 0.33 to 7.56) in uMIC. Wealth inequalities among women showed a pattern similar to that of men: the RII was 5.88 (95% CI 3.91 to 8.85) in LICs, 1.76 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.85) in lMIC and 0.39 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.64) in uMIC. In contrast to men, among women, the SII was pro-rich (higher smoking among the more advantaged) in 13 of the 52 countries (7 of 23 lMIC and 5 of 7 uMIC).
INTERPRETATION: Our results confirm that socioeconomic inequalities tobacco use exist in LMIC, varied widely between the countries and were much wider in the lowest income countries. These findings are important for better understanding and tackling of socioeconomic inequalities in health in LMIC.