Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 2030-A Program to Accelerate the Implementation of World Health Organization Framework Convention for Tobacco Control in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) 2030 Program (2017-2021) was launched to accelerate World Health Organization (WHO) FCTC implementation in 15 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We evaluated the Program in six domains: Governance; Smoke-Free Policies; Taxation; Packaging and Health Warnings; Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship (TAPS) bans; and International and Regional Cooperation. AIMS AND METHODS: Following a mixed-methods design, we surveyed (June-September 2020) FCTC focal persons in 14 of the 15 countries, to understand the Program's financial and technical inputs and progress made in each of the six domains. The data were coded in terms of inputs (financial = 1, technical = 1, or both = 2) and progress (none = 1, some = 2, partial = 3, or strong = 4) and a correlation was computed between the inputs and progress scores for each domain. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in five countries. We triangulated between the survey and interview findings. RESULTS: FCTC 2030 offered substantial financial and technical inputs, responsive to country needs, across all six domains. There was a high positive correlation between technical inputs and progress in five of the six domains, ranging from r = 0.61 for taxation (p < .05) to r = 0.91 and for smoke-free policies (p < .001). The interviews indicated that the Program provided timely and relevant evidence and created opportunities for influencing tobacco control debates. CONCLUSIONS: The FCTC 2030 Program might have led to variable, but significant progress in advancing FCTC implementation in the 15 countries. As expected, much of the progress was in augmenting existing structures and resources for FCTC implementation. The resulting advances are likely to lead to further progress in FCTC policy implementation. IMPLICATIONS: What this study adds: In many LMICs, WHO FCTC policies are not in place; and even when enshrined in law, they are poorly enforced. It is not clear how financial and technical assistance to high tobacco-burden LMICs can most effectively accelerate the implementation of WHO FCTC policies and offer value for money. Bespoke and responsive assistance, both financial and technical, to LMICs aimed at accelerating the implementation of WHO FCTC policies are likely to lead to progress in tobacco control.

'Oral Cancer is a Punishment for my Sins': Oral Histories of Oral Cancer, Fatalism and Islamic Religious Beliefs in Pakistan.

This paper explores how Islamic religious beliefs; spiritual practices and fatalism may act as barriers to a diagnosis of oral cancer in Rawalpindi/Islamabad Pakistan. The qualitative methodology is oral history and interviews took place with fifteen women diagnosed with oral cancer and receiving treatment in hospital. The research provides a model illustrating how religiosity, fatalism and the social determinants of health exist on a continuum and influence the perspectives of women in Pakistan, contributing to their late presentation and diagnosis of oral cancer. Analysis of the patients' oral histories, suggests improved communication between medical professionals and integration of spiritual/traditional healers into the existing health care system of Pakistan which may assist in reducing oral health inequalities.

Pakistan Oral Cancer Collaborative: analyzing barriers and obstacles to oral cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prevention in Pakistan.

Oral cancer is a global health problem with increasing case numbers worldwide and no significant improvement in prognosis over the last few decades. It is one of the most common cancers and a leading cause of death in Pakistan, although the number reported is significantly underreported owing to the lack of a national cancer repository, and the true magnitude of this challenge is not known. Bilateral discussions and workshops funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund brought together a number of like-minded researchers and clinicians from the United Kingdom and Pakistan to analyze the status quo and plan the future course. This article reviews some of these discussions as well as barriers to oral cancer diagnosis in Pakistan and makes recommendations to investigate the magnitude and develop measures that may help tackle this devastating disease.

Oral health education (advice and training) for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness not only experience an erosion of functioning in day-to-day life over a protracted period of time, but evidence also suggests that they have a greater risk of experiencing oral disease and greater oral treatment needs than the general population. Poor oral hygiene has been linked to coronary heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory disease and impacts on quality of life, affecting everyday functioning such as eating, comfort, appearance, social acceptance, and self esteem. Oral health, however, is often not seen as a priority in people suffering with serious mental illness. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of oral health education (advice and training) with or without monitoring for people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (5 November 2015), which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on oral health education (advice and training) with or without monitoring for people with serious mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1358 participants. None of the studies provided useable data for the key outcomes of not having seen a dentist in the past year, not brushing teeth twice a day, chronic pain, clinically important adverse events, and service use. Data for leaving the study early and change in plaque index scores were provided. Oral health education compared with standard careWhen 'oral health education' was compared with 'standard care', there was no clear difference between the groups for numbers leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 50, RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.24, moderate-quality evidence), while for dental state: no clinically important change in plaque index, an effect was found. Although this was statistically significant and favoured the intervention group, it is unclear if it was clinically important (1 RCT, n = 40, MD - 0.50 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.38, very low quality evidence).These limited data may have implications regarding improvement in oral hygiene. Motivational interview + oral health education compared with oral health educationSimilarly, when 'motivational interview + oral health education' was compared with 'oral health education', there was no clear difference for the outcome of leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60 RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, moderate-quality evidence), while for dental state: no clinically important change in plaque index, an effect favouring the intervention group was found (1 RCT, n = 56, MD - 0.60 95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.18 very low-quality evidence). These limited, clinically opaque data may or may not have implications regarding improvement in oral hygiene. Monitoring compared with no monitoringFor this comparison, only data for leaving the study early were available. We found a difference in numbers leaving early, favouring the 'no monitoring' group (1 RCT, n = 1682, RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence). However, these data are problematic. The control denominator is implied and not clear, and follow-up did not depend only on individual participants, but also on professional caregivers and organisations - the latter changing frequently resulting in poor follow-up, but not a good reflection of the acceptability of the monitoring to patients. For this comparison, no data were available for 'no clinically important change in plaque index'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from trials that oral health advice helps people with serious mental illness in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes. It makes sense to follow guidelines and recommendations such as those put forward by the British Society for Disability and Oral Health working group until better evidence is generated. Pioneering trialists have shown that evaluative studies relevant to oral health advice for people with serious mental illness are possible.