1. |
- Bousquet, J, et al.
(author)
-
CHRODIS criteria applied to the MASK (MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK) Good Practice in allergic rhinitis : A SUNFRAIL report
- 2017
-
In: Clinical and Translational Allergy. - : Wiley. - 2045-7022. ; 7:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A Good Practice is a practice that works well, produces good results, and is recommended as a model. MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel Network (MASK), the new Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative, is an example of a Good Practice focusing on the implementation of multi-sectoral care pathways using emerging technologies with real life data in rhinitis and asthma multi-morbidity. The European Union Joint Action on Chronic Diseases and Promoting Healthy Ageing across the Life Cycle (JA-CHRODIS) has developed a checklist of 28 items for the evaluation of Good Practices. SUNFRAIL (Reference Sites Network for Prevention and Care of Frailty and Chronic Conditions in community dwelling persons of EU Countries), a European Union project, assessed whether MASK is in line with the 28 items of JA-CHRODIS. A short summary was proposed for each item and 18 experts, all members of ARIA and SUNFRAIL from 12 countries, assessed the 28 items using a Survey Monkey-based questionnaire. A visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (strongly disagree) to 100 (strongly agree) was used. Agreement equal or over 75% was observed for 14 items (50%). MASK is following the JA-CHRODIS recommendations for the evaluation of Good Practices.
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
- Rolandsson, Margot, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of snuff on oral health status of adolescent males : A case-control study
- 2005
-
In: Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry. ; 3:2, s. 77-85
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The purpose of this study was to investigate effects of snuff on the oral health status of adolescent males. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participants consisted of 80 adolescent males between 16-25 years, 40 snuff users and 40 non-users. The snuff users and non-users were matched with reference to their age. Data were collected using a questionnaire containing questions on general and oral health, daily oral hygiene and tobacco habits. The clinical examination was carried out in a dental office by two experienced dental hygienists. Snuff lesions were clinically classified on a four-point scale and documented on colour slides. The examination also assessed the number of teeth, restored tooth surfaces, plaque index and gingival index, probing pocket depth and gingival recessions. RESULTS: Out of 40 snuff users, 35 showed snuff incluced lesions. The clinical diagnosis of snuff users' mucosa showed snuff lesions of different severity clinically classified as degree 1, 2 and 3. When explaining snuff lesions of degree 2 and 3, hours of daily snuff use and package form (portion-bag snuff versus loose snuff) was statistically significant. There were no statistical differences between snuff users and non-users regarding restored tooth surfaces, presence of plaque, gingival inflammation and probing pocket depth. Seventeen percent of the cases showed loss of periodontal attachment as gingival recessions. CONCLUSION: In spite of mucosal lesions caused by snuff there were no statistical differences in prevalence in plaque and gingivitis between snuff users and non-users. However, some cases showed loss of periodontal attachment as gingival recessions.
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
|
|