METHODS: This study analysed cross-sectional data from the Research with East London Adolescents Community Health Survey, a prospective population survey of adolescents attending state schools in East London, England. The history of NSSI was obtained using two items from the Lifestyle and Coping questionnaire (whether they have ever engaged with self-harm and the last time they engaged in such behaviours). The presence of TDIs, increased overjet and inadequate lip coverage were determined through clinical assessments by two trained dentists. Survey logistic regression was fitted to test the association of NSSI with TDIs. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for socio-demographic and clinical characteristics as potential confounders.
RESULTS: The lifetime and last-year prevalence of NSSI were 11.9% and 6.7%, respectively, whereas the prevalence of TDIs was 16.5%. Neither the lifetime prevalence of NSSI (OR: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.85) nor the last-year prevalence of NSSI (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.36-1.61) were associated with TDIs in regression models adjusted for confounders.
CONCLUSION: This study did not support an association between history of NSSI and TDIs among adolescents aged 15-16 years old in East London.
AIM: This study aimed to identify the range of clinical pharmacy activities in ambulatory care, assess the suitability of the existing ward-based tool for capturing these activities, and recommend modifications.
METHOD: Non-participant direct observations were conducted to record pharmacists' clinical activities in ambulatory clinics and multidisciplinary meetings. These observations were compared to the existing ward-based tool to identify discrepancies. Semi-structured interviews with eight ambulatory pharmacists were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed inductively to explore the tool's representativeness of their routine clinical activities.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine clinical pharmacy activities were observed in ambulatory services. Only fifteen were captured by the existing tool, with therapy monitoring and recommending therapeutic changes not accurately captured. Pharmacists agreed that the tool was not fully representative and included irrelevant activities. Four common uncaptured activities were multidisciplinary meeting-specific activities, arranging laboratory tests, monitoring patient outcomes, and liaising with community healthcare professionals. This study identified 33 candidate ambulatory clinical pharmacy activities.
CONCLUSION: The existing ward-based tool does not fully capture the full range of ambulatory care clinical pharmacy activities, highlighting the need for an improved tool. Pharmacists recommended including the uncaptured activities. The candidate activities provide a foundation for standardised measurement of relevant ambulatory care activities to enable effective workforce deployment and improve patient outcomes.