scholarly journals Risk assessment for oral urgent treatment in Primary Healthcare: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Viana Ribeiro Ramos ◽  
João Luiz Miraglia ◽  
Camila Nascimento Monteiro ◽  
Danielle Borchardt ◽  
Leonardo Tribis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Oral Disease ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Abstract Background The World Health Organization has advocated for the integration of dental care into the primary healthcare (PHC) setting, including oral urgent treatment (OUT). However, the knowledge necessary for OUT implementation in this setting is still limited. Thus, this study aimed to describe the impact of the implementation of oral disease risk assessment tools for oral health management in PHC. Methods This was a cross-sectional study that included individuals served by a single public PHC unit, with integrated oral healthcare teams, located in the south region of the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2015 and March of 2017. Data were collected from dental records. Three co-primary endpoints: same day treatment offered, first future appointment scheduled fulfilled, and treatment plan completed were compared before and after the implementation of oral disease risk assessment for OUT. Results A total of 1214 individuals that sought OUT, 599 before and 615 after the implementation of oral disease risk assessment for OUT were included in the study. All three co-primary endpoints had significant changes after the implementation of oral disease risk assessment for OUT. Individuals were significantly more likely to be offered same day treatment after (39.9%; 95% CI:36.0–43.9%) than before (9.4%; 95% CI: 7.2–12.0%), to fulfill their first future appointment scheduled after (34.9%; 95% CI:31.1–38.8%) than before (20.7%; 95% CI: 17.5–24.2%), and to have their treatment plan completed after (14.3%; 95% CI:11.6–17.4%) than before (10.0%; 95% CI: 7.7–12.7%) the intervention. Conclusions This study provided evidence of the positive impact oral disease risk assessment tools could have in the organization of OUT in PHC settings.

Comparison of IDRS and ADA Diabetes Risk Assessment Tools Reveals Different Rsk Score in Same Population: A Cross-Sectional Analysis in a Tertiary Care Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-18
Author(s):  
N. Akter ◽  
N.K. Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Predicted Risk

Background: To identify individuals at high risk of developing type2 diabetes (T2DM), use of a validated risk-assessment tool is currently recommended. Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that risk scores that are developed in the same country can lead to different results of an individual. The Objective of study was to reveal whether two different risk-assessment tools predict similar or dissimilar high-risk score in same population. Method: This cross-sectional analytical study was carried upon 336 non-diabetic adults visiting the outpatient department (OPD) of Medicine, MARKS Medical College & Hospital, Bangladesh from October 2018 to March 2019. Woman having previous history of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) were also included. Both the Indian Diabetes risk Score (IDRS) and the American Diabetes (ADA) Risk Score questionnaire were used to collect the data on demographic and clinical characteristics, different risk factors of an individual subject, and to calculate predicted risk score for developing T2DM. Results: Among 336 subjects, 53.6% were female. The mean (±SD) age of the study subjects was 38.25±1.12 years. The average IDRS predicted risk score of developing T2DM was more in female subjects than male [p<0.05]. Whereas the ADA predicted increased risk score of developing type 2 diabetes was more in male subjects than female (p<0.05). IDRS categorized 37.2 % of individuals at high risk for developing diabetes; [p=0.10], while the ADA risk tool categorized 20.2% subjects in high risk group; [p<0.001]. Conclusions: The results indicate that risk for developing type 2 diabetes varies considerably according to the scoring system used. To adequately prevent T2DM, risk scoring systems must be validated for each population considered.

scholarly journals Tools for Assessing Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Underserved Young Adult Populations: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (24) ◽  
pp. 13305
Author(s):  
Audrey A. Opoku-Acheampong ◽  
Richard R. Rosenkranz ◽  
Koushik Adhikari ◽  
Nancy Muturi ◽  
Cindy Logan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Cardiovascular disease (CVD, i.e., disease of the heart and blood vessels) is a major cause of death globally. Current assessment tools use either clinical or non-clinical factors alone or in combination to assess CVD risk. The aim of this review was to critically appraise, compare, and summarize existing non-clinically based tools for assessing CVD risk factors in underserved young adult (18–34-year-old) populations. Two online electronic databases—PubMed and Scopus—were searched to identify existing risk assessment tools, using a combination of CVD-related keywords. The search was limited to articles available in English only and published between January 2008 and January 2019. Of the 10,383 studies initially identified, 67 were eligible. In total, 5 out of the 67 articles assessed CVD risk in underserved young adult populations. A total of 21 distinct CVD risk assessment tools were identified; six of these did not require clinical or laboratory data in their estimation (i.e., non-clinical). The main non-clinically based tools identified were the Heart Disease Fact Questionnaire, the Health Beliefs Related to CVD-Perception measure, the Healthy Eating Opinion Survey, the Perception of Risk of Heart Disease Scale, and the WHO STEPwise approach to chronic disease factor surveillance (i.e., the STEPS instrument).

scholarly journals Agreement between cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools: An application to the United Arab Emirates population

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. e0228031
Author(s):  
Abderrahim Oulhaj ◽  
Sherif Bakir ◽  
Faisal Aziz ◽  
Abubaker Suliman ◽  
Wael Almahmeed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease Risk ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Estimating the risk for atherothrombosis: are current approaches sufficient?

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 427-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W.F. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Risk Estimation ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
The World ◽  
Atherothrombotic Disease

Atherothrombotic disease is now the leading cause of mortality in the world and there are only a few methods available to estimate risk of vascular disease. Vascular disease risk assessment methods have been developed from a variety of population based studies and the most frequently used approaches include algorithms developed by Framingham (USA), Munster (Germany), and SCORE (Europe). The field of risk estimation is dynamic and inclusion of newer factors and populations is under active consideration and methods such as discrimination and calibration are now available to evaluate the use of risk assessment tools across different world regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document