ABSTRACT
Purpose: Diabetes retinopathy (DR) is one of the fatal causes of permanent and irreversible blindnessinfection that is prevalent making individuals suffer from diabetic conditions; however, annual medicalexamination is a critical interventional approach that not only limits the extent of infection but aids in timelyformulation of relevant mitigation strategies and control of DR. Common to other healthcare systems inadvance economies, the primary care physicians (PCP) are the immediate providers of primary care fordiabetes across the kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The aim of the present research paper is to assess thecurrent awareness, practices, and knowledge of PCP on DR. Method: The present research adopted a crosssectional design that covered three cities in Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire with threedifferent parts was submitted to physicians in the healthcare facilities across the three cities. In addition, theresearch adopted a convenience sampling method during which the designated regions were selected due toconvenience in proximity as well as accessibility. Results: The research paper considered a sample size of710 participants. An in-depth and compressive analysis of the results elucidated underlying defects as well asshortfalls on the physicians’ awareness, knowledge, and practices on DR. The results demonstrated defects inscreening methods as well as referral procedures among physicians. Conclusion: Overall, the extent ofknowledge, practices, and awareness among the PCP in the three cities were satisfactory. Hence, it is highlyrecommended that future awareness campaigns should focus on timely and detailed screening approaches inorder to manage diabetic conditions among patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to determine whether laypeople and professionals rate the facial appearance of individuals with repaired complete unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP, BCLP) similarly based on viewing full facial images. METHODS: The study followed a cross-sectional analytical design where five young patients aged 10 to 14 years, who had completed all stages of their unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and palate treatment (bilateral: three, unilateral: two), were evaluated by two groups. The assessment was done by laypeople and 97 qualified professionals (33 orthodontists, 32 plastic surgeons, and 32 oral and maxillofacial surgeons). Professionals were not involved in any stage of the patients’ treatment. RESULTS: The facial appearance assessment of the professional groups on different facial aesthetics was significantly lower than that of laypeople, and they had higher perceived need for further treatment. On the other hand, laypeople had higher aesthetic ratings and lower perceived need for further treatment. Differences were also observed between the assessments of the professional groups. Participants who had lower aesthetic assessments of the repair tended to report a higher influence of cleft lip and palate on social activities and professional life. CONCLUSION: Differences in perception exist between healthcare professionals and laypeople. The discrepancies between the professional groups could be attributed to different treatment modalities and protocols.