Uptake and adoption of the NHS App in England: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Technological advances have led to the use of patient portals that give people digital access to their personal health information. The NHS App was launched in January 2019 as a 'front door' to digitally enabled health services. AIM: To evaluate patterns of uptake of the NHS App, subgroup differences in registration, and the impact of COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational study using monthly NHS App user data at general-practice level in England was conducted. METHOD: Descriptive statistics and time-series analysis explored monthly NHS App use from January 2019-May 2021. Interrupted time-series models were used to identify changes in the level and trend of use of different functionalities, before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown. Negative binomial regression assessed differences in app registration by markers of general-practice level sociodemographic variables. RESULT: Between January 2019 and May 2021, there were 8 524 882 NHS App downloads and 4 449 869 registrations, with a 4-fold increase in App downloads when the COVID Pass feature was introduced. Analyses by sociodemographic data found 25% lower registrations in the most deprived practices (P<0.001), and 44% more registrations in the largest sized practices (P<0.001). Registration rates were 36% higher in practices with the highest proportion of registered White patients (P<0.001), 23% higher in practices with the largest proportion of 15-34-year-olds (P<0.001) and 2% lower in practices with highest proportion of people with long-term care needs (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The uptake of the NHS App substantially increased post-lockdown, most significantly after the NHS COVID Pass feature was introduced. An unequal pattern of app registration was identified, and the use of different functions varied. Further research is needed to understand these patterns of inequalities and their impact on patient experience.

Legislative provisions for standardised tobacco packaging and changes in public support in 27 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Global adoption of standardised packaging requirements for tobacco products is a victory for public health, but their proliferation and impacts rely partly on public support. How this is related to legislation remains underassessed. This study explored change over time in public support for standardised packaging in countries with varying degrees of legislative provisions. METHODS: We used data from 27 European countries, collected from 2017 (n=28, 300) and 2020 (n=27, 901) waves of the Eurobarometer survey, to assess self-reported support for standardised packaging regulations among both smokers and non-smokers. Countries were grouped into three categories of policy adoption (policy implemented; policy legislated; no legislation) and changes in support were assessed using multilevel Poisson regression models. RESULTS: In 2020, public support for standardised packaging was 71% (95% CI 68% to 74%) in countries that implemented standardised packaging legislation, 57% (55% to 60%) in countries that had legislated but not yet implemented legislation and 41% (40%to 42%) in countries with no legislation. Compared with 2017, this represented a relative change of +8% (1% to 15%), +12% (5% to 21%) and -5% (95% CI -2% to -8%), respectively, in the three country categories. Among smokers, there was no indication of change in support across the three groups. Among non-smokers, support increased in countries with existing legislation (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]=1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23) and decreased in countries with no legislation (aPR=0.93, 0.90 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Public support for standardised packaging regulations increased in countries implementing and legislating for these measures, particularly among non-smokers. An overall increase in support provides reassurance for policymakers defending policy action on tobacco packaging, as well as for those seeking to implement standardised packaging in their own countries. .

Aerosol and splatter generation with rotary handpieces used in restorative and orthodontic dentistry: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in dental care globally, in part due to the potential for contaminated aerosol to be generated by dental activities. This systematic review assesses the literature for changes in aerosol-contamination levels when rotary instruments are used, (1) as distance increases from patient's mouth; (2) as time passes after the procedure; and (3) when using different types of handpieces. METHODS: The review methods and reporting are in line with PRISMA statements. A structured search was conducted over five platforms (September 2021). Studies were assessed independently by two reviewers. To be eligible studies had to assess changes in levels of aerosol contamination over different distances, and time points, with rotary hand instruments. Studies' methodologies and the sensitivity of the contamination-measurement approaches were evaluated. Results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: From 422 papers identified, 23 studies were eligible. All investigated restorative procedures using rotary instruments and one study additionally looked at orthodontic bracket adhesive material removal. The results suggest contamination is significantly reduced over time and distance. However, for almost all studies that investigated these two factors, the sizes of the contaminated particles were not considered, and there were inconclusive findings regarding whether electric-driven handpieces generate lower levels of contaminated particles. CONCLUSION: Aerosol contamination levels reduce as distances, and post-procedure times increase. However, there was sparce and inconsistent evidence on the clearing time and no conclusions could be drawn. High-speed handpieces produce significantly higher levels of contamination than slow-speed ones, and to a lesser extent, micro-motor handpieces. However, when micro-motor handpieces were used with water, the contamination levels rose and were similar to high-speed handpiece contamination levels.

Health and Wellbeing of Clinical Dental Care Professionals: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There has been much research relating to stressors in the dental environment and concerns over dentists' health and wellbeing. The determinants of dentists' health and wellbeing within the UK include macro-factors, such as healthcare systems and regulation; meso-factors, such as job specification and workplace characteristics; and micro-factors, such as personal aspects, professional career level, and personal and professional relationships. Given the challenges in dentistry, research is needed to investigate the key determinants relating to the health and wellbeing of clinical dental care professionals (DCPs) nationally. AIM: To review the literature on the key determinants of health and wellbeing among dental hygienists, dental therapists, clinical dental technicians, and orthodontic therapists in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases. The records were screened by title, abstract and full text based on the study inclusion criteria. Extraction of data and a qualitative synthesis of the included studies was performed. A mixed methods appraisal tool was used to quality assess for risk of bias. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review, eleven of which were medium to high quality (5*, 4*) and one low quality (2*). Ten studies focused on dental therapists, and/or hygienists, with only one each on orthodontic therapists and clinical dental technicians. Job satisfaction and professional careers were the primary factors explored in the included studies and clearly identified as determinants of health and wellbeing. However, there was evidence of these being associated and linked with a range of determinants at macro-, meso-, and micro-levels, with a general lack of evidence on the overall health and wellbeing. CONCLUSION: There is currently very limited evidence on the key determinants of health and wellbeing of clinical DCPs within the UK, but the available evidence maps to the same domains as dentists. Further well conducted research examining the overall health and wellbeing is required, with consideration of the full matrix of possible factors.

Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of host-derived salivary biomarkers in periodontal disease amongst adults: Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the diagnostic value of host-derived salivary biomarkers based on their reported sensitivity and specificity in relation to clinical parameters of periodontal disease diagnosis in adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comprehensive search of PubMed, Nature, Cochrane and OVID (Embase, MEDLINE [R] and PsycINFO) was conducted up to 1 August 2018, using key terms relevant to the research questions and Cochrane methodology, supplemented by a grey literature search. The revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS- 2) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of all included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the review. Macrophage inflammatory protein-1αlpha (MIP-1α), interleukin-1beta (IL-1ß), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) were identified as diagnostically acceptable biomarkers for periodontal disease. Overall, the combination of IL-6 and MMP-8 showed best diagnostic performance. Also, a combination of the four key biomarkers (IL-1ß, IL-6, MMP-8 and MIP-1α) showed promising results for distinction between gingivitis and periodontitis, as well as for periodontitis compared with gingival health. Results are interpreted with caution due to limitations in the number of studies included and their quality. CONCLUSION: Certain salivary biomarkers can potentially be useful in combination and singularly for the diagnosis of periodontal disease. However, further methodically robust research is required to validate these biomarkers.