Palauans who chew betel nut: social impact of oral disease.

BACKGROUND: Chewing betel nut is a tradition extending from Southeast Asia to the Pacific. Globally, betel nut is the fourth main psychotropic substance containing a stimulant, arecoline, that has a similar effect to nicotine. In Palau, there is broad acceptance of betel nut chewing. One of the largest immigrant groups in Hawaii is the Palauans. Chewing betel nut has significant social implications that make it difficult for those who engage in this practice to separate potential oral disease from the social importance. However, little is known about the social impact of oral disease from chewing betel nut on Palauans in Hawaii. AIM: The study aimed to describe the perceptions of betel-chewing Palauans in Hawaii regarding betel nut and to determine the social impact of oral disease among these individuals. METHODS: Descriptive study conducted on the island of Oahu, Hawaii with 30 adult Palauans. Data were collected using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 to measure perceptions of social impact of oral disease on well-being. Demographic and general health information was collected. RESULTS: Participants perceived little negative social impact of oral disease on well-being. DISCUSSION: Families, peers and society exert a strong influence on the decision to chew betel nut, a known carcinogen. Participants in this study showed little concern on the impact of betel nut chewing on their oral health. They continue the habit in spite of the awareness of potential for oral disease. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY: Nurses face challenges in educating Palauans about the negative aspects of betel nut, particularly those related to oral health especially when they do not perceive problems. Nurses must be involved in the development of health policies to design and implement strategies to promote behavioural change, and to ensure clinical services that are culturally sensitive to betel nut chewers.

Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers.

BACKGROUND: Researchers often relate personal experiences of difficulties and challenges with Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of their human genetic research protocols. However, there have been no studies that document the range and frequency of these concerns among researchers conducting human genetic/genomic studies. METHODS: An online anonymous survey was used to collect information from human genetic researchers regarding views about IRB review of genetic protocols. Logistic regression was used to test specific hypotheses. Results from the national online survey of 351 human genomic researchers are summarized in this report. RESULTS: Issues involving considerable discussion with IRBs included reconsent of subjects (51%), protection of participants' personal information (39%) and return of results to participants (34%). Over half of the participants had experienced one or more negative consequences of the IRB review process and approximately 25% had experienced one or more positive consequences. Respondents who had served on an IRB were about 80% more likely to report positive consequences of IRB review than their colleagues who had never served on an IRB (p = 0.03). Survey responses were mixed on the need for reconsent before data sharing and risks related to participant reidentification from genomic data. CONCLUSION: The results from this study provide important perspectives of researchers regarding genetic research review and show lack of consensus on key research ethics issues in genomic research.