OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to systematically review published evidence on the effectiveness of CAL in disseminating oral health care information to patients and caregivers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured comprehensive search was undertaken among 7 electronic databases (PUBMED, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, SCOPUS, WEB of SCIENCE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO) to identify relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included in this review. Papers were screened by 2 independent reviewers, and studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected for further assessment.
RESULTS: A total of 2915 papers were screened, and full texts of 53 potentially relevant papers (κ = 0.885) were retrieved. A total of 5 studies that met the inclusion criteria (1 RCT, 1 quasi-experimental study, and 3 post-intervention studies) were identified. Outcome measures included knowledge, attitude, behavior, and oral health. Significant improvements in clinical oral health parameters (P patients and caregivers. Synthesis of the data suggests that CAL has positive impacts on knowledge, attitude, behavior, and oral health. Further high- quality studies on the effectiveness of CAL in promoting oral health are warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a nurse-led health education programme on knowledge, attitude and beliefs of coronary patients towards the responses to acute coronary syndrome and the association with patients' characteristics.
METHODS: A single-group quasi-experimental design took place in a tertiary hospital. A total of 60 coronary patients were recruited to this study. The knowledge, attitude and beliefs towards acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were evaluated at baseline and after 1 month of giving education intervention.
RESULTS: Knowledge, attitude and beliefs about ACS increased significantly from baseline to 1 month after intervention. Level of attitude was associated with gender, educational level and employment status.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that an education program conducted by a nurse improved patients' level of knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in response to ACS symptoms at 1 month compared to baseline, but whether they are sustained for a longer period is unclear. Improving the responses towards ACS might reduce decision delay in symptom interpretation and seeking early treatment.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurse-led interventions have imparted positive outcomes in response to ACS symptoms among coronary patients. Therefore, nurses should take the initiative in educating patients to minimize delay in symptom interpretation and seeking early treatment.
Methodology: WESIHAT 2.0 was devised in a senior-friendly style, which includes touch screen, greater font size, larger icons, and employed multimedia components of text, images, and videos. The components employed in WESIHAT 2.0 were a screening tool called TUA-WELLNESS, 10 guides for memory improvement, health diary, and guide for a healthy menu. This application assessed a group of 73 candidates consisting of elderly people, health professionals, caregivers, and information technology (IT) professionals for 1 month.
Results: All the elderly people, caregivers, and 75% of IT and health professionals were satisfied with the subject matter of WESIHAT 2.0. About more than half of the elderly people, caregivers, and IT and health professionals had given a consensus on the comprehensive ease of the terminologies, sentences, images, table, and advice related to diet included in the web application. Proposals for improvements of the web portal included suggestions such as using smaller sentences, using greater font size, adding more images, and avoiding the use of unfamiliar terminologies.
Conclusion: WESIHAT 2.0 is a suitable tool for educating older people about the lifestyle modification strategies to slower progression to cognitive impairment, with regard to the significance of expert advice.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVE: This article provides the reader with an understanding of the natural history, pathophysiology, phases and clinical features of idiopathic frozen shoulder. It also outlines patients at risk of developing idiopathic frozen shoulder and addresses an evidence-based conservative approach to the management of this condition.
DISCUSSION: The primary care physician plays a pivotal part in the identification and management of idiopathic frozen shoulder, with the vast majority of patients responding to conservative management. A shared care approach with a skilled physiotherapist is essential.