MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty primary school children were included. They were divided into caries and caries-free groups. Unstimulated whole saliva was collected from each participant using spitting method. The salivary elements were measured using an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer. Descriptive statistics, bivariate and Pearson's correlation analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Salivary Cu and Zn levels were significantly higher in children with dental caries compared to those caries-free (p < 0.05). Moreover, these elements had a positive correlation with dental caries (Cu: r=0.698, p<0.001; Zn: r=0.181, p<0.05). No significant variations in Mn and Fe were observed between caries and caries-free group (p>0.05). Additionally, there were significant differences in salivary Zn and Fe among different age groups (p<0.05) and highly significant differences in salivary Cu, Mn and Fe among different ethnic groups (p<0.001). However, all elements exhibited no significant differences between males and females.
CONCLUSION: The salivary Cu and Zn levels showed significant differences between caries and caries-free groups. The findings also revealed significant variations in the levels of salivary Cu, Mn and Fe among different ethnic groups and salivary Zn and Fe among different age groups.
OBJECTIVE: This study explored, assessed and compared the current status of medicines labeling, patient's counseling, and symptomatic diagnosis by general practitioners and community pharmacists.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study used trained Simulated Patients (SP), who participated in a scenario of common cold symptoms at private clinics and community pharmacies. SPs explored medication labeling, patients counseling and symptomatic diagnosis undertaken by general practitioners and community pharmacists. Later, study authors assessed and compared these practices. The study was conducted during June 2011 in Penang, Malaysia.
RESULTS: The study used descriptive statistics and Fisher-exact test to analyze data. Regarding patients counseling standard, among 100 visits by simulated patients, 64 (64%) from community pharmacists provided information about the medicine name, its indication, dosage and route of administration versus 17 (42.5%) general practitioners during 40 visits (p=0.024). Concerning adherence to labeling standard, for instance, only in one pharmacy visit, (1%) the pharmacist wrote the name of the patient on the medication label versus in 32 (80%) of doctors' visits, the doctors adhered to this labeling standard (p<0.001). In all doctors' visits (n=40, 100%), SPs were asked about symptoms, whereas in 87 (87%) CPs' visits, pharmacists fulfilled this counseling standard (p=0.02).
CONCLUSION: Although pharmacists showed less compliance to medicine labeling and symptomatic diagnosis compared to doctors, their counseling of patients was better. Separation will definitely contribute to more concentration of each provider on his/her roles and improve and direct the experiences and skills towards being more patient oriented.