Support for the psychosocial, disease and brain disease models of addiction: A survey of treatment providers' attitudes in Australia, the UK, and U.S.

2020 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 108033
Author(s):  
Anthony Barnett ◽  
Kerry O'Brien ◽  
Wayne Hall ◽  
Adrian Carter
Author(s):  
Kate Hunt ◽  
Nathan Critchlow ◽  
Ashley Brown ◽  
Christopher Bunn ◽  
Fiona Dobbie ◽  
...  

The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented restrictions on people’s movements and interactions, as well as the cancellation of major sports events and social activities, directly altering the gambling landscape. There is urgent need to provide regulators, policy makers and treatment providers with evidence on the patterns and context of gambling during COVID-19 and its aftermath. This protocol describes a study addressing the following three questions: (1) How has COVID-19 changed gambling practices and the risk factors for, and experience of, gambling harms? (2) What is the effect of COVID-19 on gambling marketing? (3) How has COVID-19 changed high risk groups’ gambling experiences and practices? This mixed-method study focuses on two groups, namely young adults and sports bettors. In workpackage-1, we will extend an existing longitudinal survey of gambling in young adults (aged 16–24 years) (first wave conducted June–August 2019), adding COVID-19-related questions to the second wave (July–August 2020) and extending to a third wave in 2021; and undertake a survey of sports bettors in the UK (baseline n = 4000, ~July–August 2020), with follow-ups in ~October–November 2020 and ~February-March 2021. In workpackage-2, we will examine changes in expenditure on paid-for gambling advertising from January 2019 to July 2021 and undertake a mixed-method content analysis of a random sample of paid-for gambling advertising (n ~ 200) and social media marketing (n ~ 100) during the initial COVID-19 “lockdown”. Workpackage-3 will involve qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of (a) young adults (aged 18–24 years) and (b) sports bettors.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 117822421878037
Author(s):  
Julian Abel ◽  
Allan Kellehear

The UK Palliative Medicine Syllabus is critically evaluated to assess its relationship and relevance to contemporary palliative care policy and direction. Three criteria are employed for this review: (1) relevance to non-cancer dying, ageing, caregivers, and bereaved populations; (2) uptake and adoption of well-being models of public health alongside traditional illness and disease models of clinical understanding; and (3) uptake and integration of public health insights and methodologies for social support. We conclude that the current syllabus falls dramatically short on all 3 criteria. Suggestions are made for future consultation and revision.


2020 ◽  
pp. 146531252095421
Author(s):  
Zahid Ahmad ◽  
Parmjit Singh

Objectives: To evaluate the characteristics of orthodontic cases at the General Dental Council’s (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee (PCC). Design: Review of data from the GDC website for orthodontically related hearings or those involving orthodontic treatment providers during 2015–2018. Setting: Observational descriptive study. Methods: Data were accessed from the GDC website by a single researcher to retrieve orthodontic cases. The press office of the GDC was contacted to ensure all data were captured. For each case that met the inclusion criteria, demographic details of the registrant, the charges proved/not proved and final outcome of the case were recorded. Results: A total of 23 registrant cases involved orthodontics and this was 8% of the total number of PCC hearings during 2015–2018. Nine (39%) of the registrants had a Membership in Orthodontics qualification although only 7 (30%) were registered as orthodontists on the UK GDC Specialist List in Orthodontics. Charges related to clinical assessment, consent and record keeping were mostly proved for dentists (13/16 hearings for each) whereas a poor standard of treatment and not cooperating with the GDC were mostly proved for orthodontists (4/7 hearings for each). Overall, conditions were imposed in 10 (44%) cases, erasure in 7 (30%) cases, suspension in 5 (22%) cases and a reprimand in 1 (4%) case. Conclusion: The GDC continue to view misdemeanours seriously and it would be prudent for registrants to be familiar with the nature of these hearings to reduce the risk of finding themselves in such a predicament.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 294-302
Author(s):  
Sophy K Barber ◽  
Fiona Ryan ◽  
Susan J Cunningham

Objective: To establish UK orthodontic treatment providers’ knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves patients as equal partners in decisions about treatment. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Online survey across the UK. Population: Dentists and orthodontists providing orthodontic treatment in the UK. Methods: Potential participants were contacted through the British Orthodontic Society mailing lists. An online survey was developed to examine knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM using a combination of evidence-based statements and free text boxes. Questions regarding previous training in SDM and preferences for further training were also included. Results: The survey was completed by 210 respondents, yielding an approximate response rate of 15%. Respondents were mainly consultants (34%) and specialist orthodontists (42%). SDM was well described in terms of the people involved in this process, how it is approached, the components and topics of discussion, and the overall purpose of SDM. Generally, there was consistency in attitudinal responses, with the largest variance in responses to questions about the professional–patient partnership, the interface between SDM and clinical guidelines, and accepting a decision that is discordant with the professional’s opinion. Fifty-one respondents reported having some previous teaching/training in SDM, with the majority (87%) indicating that they would like more training. Conclusion: Clinicians providing orthodontic treatment in the UK have a good understanding of the meaning of shared decision-making. Concerns raised about using SDM and knowledge gaps suggest there is value in providing SDM training for the orthodontic team and that orthodontic providers would welcome it.


Author(s):  
Anthony Barnett ◽  
Michael Savic ◽  
Martyn Pickersgill ◽  
Kerry O’Brien ◽  
Dan I. Lubman ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. M. Hay ◽  
T. P. Baglin ◽  
P. W. Collins ◽  
F. G. H. Hill ◽  
D. M. Keeling

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 476-477
Author(s):  
Freddie C. Hamdy ◽  
Joanne Howson ◽  
Athene Lane ◽  
Jenny L. Donovan ◽  
David E. Neal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document