scholarly journals How a Nutritional Deficiency Became Treated with Fluoride

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 4361
Author(s):  
Philippe P. Hujoel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Causes Of Disease ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Health Experts

Ignoring evidence on causes of disease such as smoking can harm public health. This report explores how public health experts started to ignore evidence that pediatric vitamin D deficiencies are associated with dental caries. Historical analyses show that an organization of clinical specialists, the American Dental Association (ADA), initiated this view. The ADA was a world-leading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies. The ADA scientific council was enlisted in this endeavor and authorized the statement saying that “claims for vitamin D as a factor in tooth decay are not acceptable”. This statement was ghost-written, the opposite of what the ADA scientific council had endorsed for 15 years, and the opposite of what the National Academy of Sciences concluded. Internal ADA documents are informative on the origin of this scientific conundrum; the ADA scientific council had ignored their scientific rules and was assisting ADA governing bodies in conflicts with the medical profession on advertising policies. The evidence presented here suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health.

Adapting Standards of Care Under Extreme Conditions

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristine M. Gebbie ◽  
Cheryl A. Peterson ◽  
Italo Subbarao ◽  
Kathleen M. White
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Control Policy ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Ethical Framework ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
State Legislation ◽  
Routine Tasks ◽  
Criminal Charges

ABSTRACTThe filing of criminal charges against a group of clinicians in New Orleans for failure to meet expected standards of care following the hurricanes of 2005 made the growing concern among health professionals about care provided during extreme emergencies or disasters all too real. Questions about what may lead to censure, penalties from licensing boards, or lawsuits have come from nurses, physicians, and many other licensed health professionals. A panel convened by the American Nurses Association that included representatives of medical, public health, hospital, and government agencies considered the ethical, professional, and practical aspects of meeting standards of care in such circumstances. Clinicians are reminded that in emergencies, it is only the circumstances that change (perhaps radically); neither the individual’s professional competency nor the basic professional standard of care is different. In making prioritized decisions under such circumstances, the individual’s ethical framework is utilitarian, and there are 3 areas for action, even when some routine tasks are set aside: maintain worker and patient safety; maintain airway, breathing, and circulation; and establish or maintain infection control. Policy recommendations such as state legislation for the adoption of comprehensive immunity for volunteer health care workers, and the establishment of a medical review panel as arbitration board are also suggested. The resulting white paper summarizes the issues and provides guidance to individual professionals, institutions in which they work, and emergency planners. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3:111–116)

Aspirin Use and Reye Syndrome

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 1049-1050
Author(s):  
RALPH E. KAUFFMAN ◽  
ROBERT J. ROBERTS
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Service ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Environmental Toxins ◽  
Reye Syndrome ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Metabolic Defects ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Service Task

The search for causes of Reye syndrome has resulted in colorful, if not controversial, incrimination of numerous factors including influenza, varicella, environmental toxins, aflotoxin, inherited metabolic defects, and various medications. Attempts to associate salicylates with Reye syndrome date from the 1960s1-3; most of these reports lacked sufficient design, conduct, or controls to implicate or exclude aspirin as a risk factor. Since 1980, several epidemiologic studies4-6 renewed concern and controversy regarding the role of aspirin in Reye syndrome. As a result, a Public Health Service Task Force was formed which culminated in the Centers for Disease Control/National Academy of Sciences pilot study7 which was designed to address the problems and shortcomings identified in the previous efforts to examine the role of aspirin as a causal factor in Reye syndrome.

An Industrial Accident

2020 ◽  
pp. 175-180
Author(s):  
Chadd K. Kraus
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Physician ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Professional Autonomy ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Scarce Resources ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
Public Health Functions ◽  
Critical Public Health

Emergency physicians and emergency departments serve critical public health functions at all times and particularly during public health emergencies or disasters. Public health emergencies and disasters transform standards of care into crisis standards of care. In addition to traditional tenets of bioethics, during events requiring crisis standards of care, the emergency physician faces the dilemmas of balancing responsibilities of how to allocate scarce resources to individual patients with obligations to the community and with personal and professional autonomy. Crisis standards of care permit emergency physicians to allocate scarce resources to provide necessary treatments to patients most likely to benefit. In crisis standard-of-care situations, emergency physicians must adhere to ethical and professional norms. The emergency physician should focus on how to best use the available resources with the recognition that not all patients might be able to be treated.

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R. Garner ◽  
Sheila V. Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue that the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram. Methods The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey and O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date. Discussion This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Our sample will include IR published in leading implementation-focused journals (i.e., Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications, and Implementation Research and Practice) between their inception and December 2020. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

scholarly journals Priority domains, aims, and testable hypotheses for implementation research: Protocol for a scoping review and evidence map

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan R Garner ◽  
Sheila Patel ◽  
M. Alexis Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Implementation Science ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Path Diagram ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

Abstract Background: The challenge of implementing evidence-based innovations within practice settings is a significant public health issue the field of implementation research (IR) is focused on addressing. Significant amounts of funding, time, and effort have been invested in IR to date, yet there remains significant room for advancement, especially regarding IR’s development of scientific theories as defined by the National Academy of Sciences (i.e., a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between variables that is supported by a vast body of evidence). Research priority setting (i.e., promoting consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society) is a key approach to helping accelerate research advancements. Thus, building upon existing IR, general principles of data reduction, and a general framework for moderated mediation, this article identifies four priority domains, three priority aims, and four testable hypotheses for IR, which we organize in the priority aims and testable hypotheses (PATH) diagram..Methods: The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent to which IR has examined the identified PATH priorities to date. Because Implementation Science is the leading journal for publishing IR and receives over 800 submissions annually, our sample will include IR (specifically, original research articles and short reports) published in Implementation Science between its inception in 2006 and December 2019. The protocol for the current scoping review and evidence map has been developed in accordance with the approach developed by Arksey & O’Malley and advanced by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien. Because scoping reviews seek to provide an overview of the identified evidence base rather than synthesize findings from across studies, we plan to use our data-charting form to provide a descriptive overview of implementation research to-date and summarize the research via one or more summary tables. We will use the PATH diagram to organize a map of the evidence to date.Discussion: This scoping review and evidence map is intended to help accelerate IR focused on suggested priority aims and testable hypotheses, which in turn will accelerate IR’s development of National Academy of Sciences-defined scientific theories and, subsequently, improvements in public health.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3vhuj/

Florence Rena Sabin (1871–1953), William Osler (1849–1919) and Tuberculosis

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-169
Author(s):  
Charles F Wooley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Department Head ◽  
Tuberculosis Control ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Rockefeller Institute ◽  
Johns Hopkins University ◽  
Woman Professor ◽  
William Osler ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Medical Intern

Florence Rena Sabin received her MD from the Johns Hopkins University in 1900. She was one of the first women to become a medical intern at Johns Hopkins and worked for the year of her internship (1900–01) under William Osler. At Johns Hopkins from y>1902 to 1925, Sabin studied embryology and histology with mentor Franklin Mall. She became the first woman professor of histology at an American school. Recruited to the Rockefeller Institute (1925), she focused on tuberculosis immunology, tubercle-bacillus biochemistry and haematology. She was the first woman department head at the Rockefeller and, in 1925, the first woman elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Settling in Colorado in 1938, she entered public health, emphasizing tuberculosis control. She received the Trudeau Award in 1945 and the Lasker Award in 1951. Her experience with tuberculosis under Osler's tutelage defined the shape of her work in basic tuberculosis research and in public health.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document