Knowledge and Practices of Public Related to Burns Management in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Burn injuries are a significant global health challenge, with physical and psychological consequences affecting 180 000 people annually. This study aimed to evaluate public knowledge and practices regarding burn management. This cross-sectional survey included 582 participants to assess their knowledge and practices related to burn management between January 2023 and May 2023. Non-healthcare participants in Al Ahsa city in Saudi Arabia were asked questions about demographic data on age, sex, education, and nationality, along with assessing knowledge of burn first aid, sources of information, awareness of burn degree, chemical burn management, personal burn exposure, and traditional treatments. Our study of 582 participants highlighted significant findings related to sex and educational levels in burn management knowledge and practice. Females were more likely to receive information about burn first aid (69.3%), with a preference for social media as their information source, while males favored official courses (31.3%). Males displayed higher self-perceived knowledge were more inclined to consider first-degree burns the most dangerous (44.7%) and were better informed about managing chemical burns (24.2%). Females reported higher burn exposure (72.5%) and were more likely to manage burns themselves (76.5%). Informed participants with prior knowledge exhibited a greater interest in learning more about burn first aid (97%) and were more knowledgeable about burn degree and chemical burn management. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring public health education to burn first aid based on sex and education level. Such targeted approaches can enhance population-level preparedness and reduce burn injuries' affect more effectively.

Rise of multiattribute decision-making in combating COVID-19: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature.

Considering the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the government and health sectors are incapable of making fast and reliable decisions, particularly given the various effects of decisions on different contexts or countries across multiple sectors. Therefore, leaders often seek decision support approaches to assist them in such scenarios. The most common decision support approach used in this regard is multiattribute decision-making (MADM). MADM can assist in enforcing the most ideal decision in the best way possible when fed with the appropriate evaluation criteria and aspects. MADM also has been of great aid to practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, MADM shows resilience in mitigating consequences in health sectors and other fields. Therefore, this study aims to analyse the rise of MADM techniques in combating COVID-19 by presenting a systematic literature review of the state-of-the-art COVID-19 applications. Articles on related topics were searched in four major databases, namely, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, from the beginning of the pandemic in 2019 to April 2021. Articles were selected on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the identified systematic review protocol, and a total of 51 articles were obtained after screening and filtering. All these articles were formed into a coherent taxonomy to describe the corresponding current standpoints in the literature. This taxonomy was drawn on the basis of four major categories, namely, medical (n = 30), social (n = 4), economic (n = 13) and technological (n = 4). Deep analysis for each category was performed in terms of several aspects, including issues and challenges encountered, contributions, data set, evaluation criteria, MADM techniques, evaluation and validation and bibliography analysis. This study emphasised the current standpoint and opportunities for MADM in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and promoted additional efforts towards understanding and providing new potential future directions to fulfil the needs of this study field.

Perception of general dentists and laypersons towards altered smile aesthetics.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate how dental practitioners and laypersons differ in their perception of altered smile aesthetics based on viewing images of a digitally manipulated smile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A photograph with close to ideal smile characteristics was selected and digitally manipulated to create changes in buccal corridor space (BCS), midline diastema, gingival display, and midline shift. These altered images were rated by two groups: dental practitioners and lay persons using a visual analogue scale. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) of both groups were calculated and the Student's t-test was used to identify any statistically significant differences between the groups. Data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Science (version 23.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). RESULTS: The dentists were more sensitive to changes in the midline shift than laypeople and provided lower scores. There were no significant differences between the two groups when the gingival display alteration was ≤3 mm. However, for gingival display of 4 mm and 5 mm, there was significant difference between the two groups, with dentist rating them poorer as compared with the laypeople (P < 0.001). Dentists were more sensitive than the laypeople for midline diastema of 2 mm and 3 mm (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005 respectively). Changes in the BCS had minimal impact on the overall esthetic score for both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of smile esthetics differed between dentists and laypersons.

Evaluation of facial appearance in patients with repaired cleft lip and palate: comparing the assessment of laypeople and healthcare professionals.

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.