Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed. Findings: 14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66-79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48-86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43-56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64-73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53-79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18-69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81-89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74-86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69-83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies. Funding: Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.

Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Dentistry in England and Wales: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, there has been considerable international attention aimed at improving the safety of hospital care, and more recently, this attention has broadened to include primary medical care. In contrast, the safety profile of primary care dentistry remains poorly characterized. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the types of primary care dental patient safety incidents reported within a national incident reporting database and understand their contributory factors and consequences. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study, which involved analysis of a weighted randomized sample of the most severe incident reports from primary care dentistry submitted to England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System. Drawing on a conceptual literature-derived model of patient safety threats that we previously developed, we developed coding frameworks to describe and conduct thematic analysis of free text incident reports and determine the relationship between incident types, contributory factors, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2000 reports sampled, 1456 were eligible for analysis. Sixty types of incidents were identified and organized across preoperative (40.3%, n = 587), intraoperative (56.1%, n = 817), and postoperative (3.6%, n = 52) stages. The main sources of unsafe care were delays in treatment (344/1456, 23.6%), procedural errors (excluding wrong-tooth extraction) (227/1456; 15.6%), medication-related adverse incidents (161/1456, 11.1%), equipment failure (90/1456, 6.2%) and x-ray related errors (87/1456, 6.0%). Of all incidents that resulted in a harmful outcome (n = 77, 5.3%), more than half were due to wrong tooth extractions (37/77, 48.1%) mainly resulting from distraction of the dentist. As a result of this type of incident, 34 of the 37 patients (91.9%) examined required further unnecessary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Flaws in administrative processes need improvement because they are the main cause for patients experiencing delays in receiving treatment. Checklists and standardization of clinical procedures have the potential to reduce procedural errors and avoid overuse of services. Wrong-tooth extractions should be addressed through focused research initiatives and encouraging policy development to mandate learning from serious dental errors like never events.

National clinical practice guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis: an international assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are important tools to promote evidence-based clinical care, but not all countries have the capacity or infrastructure to develop these in-house. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has recently developed guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of food allergy and the management of anaphylaxis. In order to inform dissemination, adaptation and implementation plans, we sought to identify countries that have/do not have national guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched PubMed to identify countries with guidelines for food allergy and/or anaphylaxis from the inception of this database to December 2016. This was supplemented with a search of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse in order to identify any additional guidelines that may not have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Data were descriptively and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Overall, 5/193 (3%) of countries had at least one guideline for food allergy or anaphylaxis. We found that one (1%) country had a national guideline for the prevention of food allergy, three (2%) countries had a guideline for the diagnosis of food allergy and three (2%) countries had a guideline for the management of food allergy. Three (2%) countries had an anaphylaxis guideline. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that the overwhelming majority of countries do not have any national clinical practice guidelines for food allergy or anaphylaxis.