Tom Hemming Karlsen: hepatologist with a public health message

The Lancet ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff Watts
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Message ◽  
Public Health Message

scholarly journals COVID-19 Pandemic: The Urgent Dental Hub experience from a primary care perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-45
Author(s):  
Zohaib Khwaja ◽  
Awais Ali ◽  
Manraj Rai
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Dental Care ◽  
Specialist Care ◽  
Health Message ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
General Dental Practitioner ◽  
Public Health Message ◽  
The Uk

In response to the nationwide lockdown on 23 March 2020 in the UK, urgent dental hubs (UDHs) were established in the community to provide emergency dental care. Consecutive referrals to a primary care UDH were prospectively analysed over a one-month period, from 18 May 2020 to 18 June 2020. Of 400 referrals received, the most common were in relation to pain (87%). In 63% neither a radiograph nor photograph was provided with the referral. Seventy percent of patients were telephone triaged within 24 hours of receipt of referral. Fifty-three percent of referrals were accepted for face-to-face treatment, of which 69% were treated by extraction. Of rejected referrals (n=179; 45%), 79% were due to symptoms having settled or being manageable by the time of triage. A small number of referrals were redirected for specialist care. Referrals that were accepted were more likely to have been prescribed antibiotics and less likely to have been referred by the general dental practitioner (GDP) they regularly saw (p <0.01). Patients that were older and those that identified themselves as not having a regular GDP were less likely to have been referred to an UDH. The quality of referrals was poor and there may be a role for virtual consultations moving forwards. We found pre-referral antimicrobial prescriptions were high and a confused public health message may have been sent.

scholarly journals Penetration of Time to Change leaflets on stigmatised attitudes to people with mental illness

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vania Mendes ◽  
Joby Maducolil Easow ◽  
Jason Luty
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Small Proportion ◽  
General Public ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Health Message ◽  
The Public ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
Public Health Message ◽  
The Uk

Aims and methodTo determine whether members of the general public read a leaflet from the Time to Change anti-stigma campaign. The leaflets were sent to 1000 members of the public at random. Those who read the leaflet were asked, in a statement concealed within the text, to return it. A second study involved modified leaflets being posted to 400 members of a representative panel of the UK general public.ResultsOnly 20 of the 1000 (2%) people who received the unsolicited leaflet returned them, which suggests that the vast majority were unread. However, the leaflet achieved a good response in the sample from the research panel with at least 29% of participants (115 of 400) reading the leaflet.Clinical implicationsA very small proportion of people acknowledge unsolicited leaflets. However, the leaflet was read by almost a third of a research panel. Hence, few people are likely to read unsolicited leaflets, including those containing a public health message.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document