Comparison of Local Anaesthetic Efficacy of Tramadol Versus Lignocaine for Extraction of Tooth Under Supraperiosteal Infiltration.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol has been shown to have a local anaesthetic effect when used as infiltration anaesthesia. METHODS: The local anaesthetic efficacy of tramadol was compared with that of lignocaine for the extraction of teeth in terms of their onset of action, duration of action, intraoperative pain, post-operative analgesic effect and adverse reactions. Apart from this, incidence of allergic reaction was also recorded for both the drugs. A total of 100 patients were divided into two groups randomly. Each patient was assigned to receive either a maximum of 2 ml of 5% tramadol (Supridol 50 mg, Neon laboratories), Group T (n = 50), as a local anaesthetic solution for extraction of maxillary premolar for orthodontic reason under supraperiosteal infiltration following strict aseptic precaution or a maximum of 2 ml of 2% lignocaine (Lox 2%, Neon laboratories), Group L (n = 50), in a double-blinded fashion. RESULTS: In group T, the mean subjective onset of action was 33.66 s, while in group L it was 33.06 s (p = 0.881). In group T, the mean objective onset of action was 3.04 min, while in group L it was 3.18 min (p > 0.05). The mean duration of action in group T was 55.60 min, while in group L it was 57.50 min (p = 0.432). Only 2 patients in group T and 1 patient in group L had nausea (p = 0.245). CONCLUSION: We conclude that 5% tramadol has a local anaesthetic efficacy similar to 2% lignocaine but is comparatively a weaker agent.

An evaluation of equity and equality in physical activity policies in four European countries.

BACKGROUND: There is strong research evidence on the importance of health equity and equality for wellbeing in societies. As chronic non-communicable diseases are widespread, the positive impact of physical activity (PA) on health has gained importance. However, PA at the population level is far from optimal. PA depends not only on individual factors, but also on policies for PA in sport, health, transport, education and other sectors, on social and cultural factors, and on the environment. Addressing health inequalities and inequities in PA promotion policies could benefit from policy development processes based on partnership and collaboration between various sectors, researchers, practitioners and policy makers (= cross-sectoral, evidence-informed policy making). The objective of this article is to describe how equity and equality was addressed in PA policies in four EU member states (Denmark, Finland, Romania and England), who were partners in the REPOPA project ( www.repopa.eu , EC/FP7/Health Research/GA 281532). METHODS: Content analysis of 14 PA policies and 61 interviews were undertaken between 2012 and 2013 with stakeholders involved in developing PA policies in partner countries. RESULTS: Even though specific population subgroups were mentioned in the policy documents analysed, they were not necessarily defined as vulnerable populations nor was there a mention of additional emphasis to support such groups from being marginalised by the policy due to inequity or inequality. There were no clear objectives and activities in the analysed policies suggesting commitment of additional resources in favour of such groups. Addressing equity and equality were often not included in the core aims of the policies analysed; these aspects were mentioned in the background of the policy documents analysed, without being explicitly stated in the aims or activities of the policies. In order to tackle health inequities and inequalities and their consequences on the health status of different population subgroups, a more instrumental approach to health equality and equity in PA promotion policies is needed. Policies should include aims to address health inequalities and inequities as fundamental objectives and also consider opportunities to allocate resources to reduce them for identified groups in this regard: the socially excluded, the remote, and the poor. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of aspects related to health inequalities and inequities in PA policies needs monitoring, evaluation and transparent accountability if we are to see the best gains in health of socially disadvantaged group. To tackle health inequities and inequalities governance structures need to take into consideration proportionate universalism. Thus, to achieve change in the social determinants of health, policy makers should pay attention to PA and proportionally invest for universal access to PA services. PA promotion advocates should develop a deeper awareness of political and policy structures and require more equity and equality in PA policies from those who they seek to influence, within specific settings for policy making and developing the policy agenda.

Cross-sector cooperation in health-enhancing physical activity policymaking: more potential than achievements?

BACKGROUND: The cooperation of actors across policy fields and the need for cross-sector cooperation as well as recommendations on how to implement cross-sector cooperation have been addressed in many national and international policies that seek to solve complex issues within societies. For such a purpose, the relevant governance structure between policy sectors is cross-sector cooperation. Therefore, cross-sector cooperation and its structures need to be better understood for improved implementation. This article reports on the governance structures and processes of cross-sector cooperation in health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policies in six European Union (EU) member states. METHODS: Qualitative content analysis of HEPA policies and semi-structured interviews with key policymakers in six European countries. RESULTS: Cross-sector cooperation varied between EU member states within HEPA policies. The main issues of the cross-sector policy process can be divided into stakeholder involvement, governance structures and coordination structures and processes. Stakeholder involvement included citizen hearings and gatherings of stakeholders from various non-governmental organisations and citizen groups. Governance structures with policy and political discussions included committees, working groups and consultations for HEPA policymaking. Coordination structures and processes included administrative processes with various stakeholders, such as ministerial departments, research institutes and private actors for HEPA policymaking. Successful cross-sector cooperation required joint planning and evaluation, financial frameworks, mandates based on laws or agreed methods of work, communication lines, and valued processes of cross-sector cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sector cooperation required participation with the co-production of goals and sharing of resources between stakeholders, which could, for example, provide mechanisms for collaborative decision-making through citizen hearing. Clearly stated responsibilities, goals, communication, learning and adaptation for cross-sector cooperation improve success. Specific resources allocated for cross-sector cooperation could enhance the empowerment of stakeholders, management of processes and outcomes of cross-sector cooperation.

Exploring the use of research evidence in health-enhancing physical activity policies.

BACKGROUND: The gaps observed between the use of research evidence and policy have been reported to be based on the different methods of using research evidence in policymaking by researchers and actual policymakers. Some policies and policymaking processes may therefore be particularly well informed by research evidence compared to others. The aims of the present article are to explore the use of research evidence in health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policies, identify when research evidence was used, and find what other types of evidence were employed in HEPA policymaking. METHODS: Multidisciplinary teams from six EU member states analysed the use of research evidence and other kinds of evidence in 21 HEPA policies and interviewed 86 key policymakers involved in the policies. Qualitative content analysis was conducted on both policy documents and interview data. RESULTS: Research evidence was mostly used to justify the creation of HEPA policies and, generally, implicitly without citation. The policies analysed used many types of evidence other than citable research. The evidence used in HEPA policies was found to fall into the following categories: societal framework, media, everyday knowledge and intuition, research evidence, and other types of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Research evidence seems to be the only type of evidence used in policymaking. Competition between the use of other types of evidence and research evidence is constant due to the various sources of information on the Internet and elsewhere. However, researchers need to understand their role in translating research evidence into policymaking processes.

Policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise.

AIM: Rare diseases are a serious public health concern and are a priority in the EU. This study aims to develop policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise (CoEs) in order to improve standards and quality of care. SUBJECT AND METHODS: A modified 3-round Delphi technique was used. Participants included rare diseases patients, carers, patient representatives and healthcare professionals (HCPs) from CoEs in two countries-Denmark and the UK. RESULTS: The results suggest the need to make improvements within current CoE environments, access to CoEs and the need for coordination and cooperation of services within and outside CoEs. It is recommended that CoEs are not overly 'medicalised', while at the same time they should be established as research facilities. The importance of including patient representatives in CoE performance management was also highlighted. Raising awareness and provision of appropriate training amongst non-specialist HCPs is seen as a priority for early and correct diagnosis and ensuring high quality care. Similarly, provision of targeted information about patients' illness and care was considered essential along with access to social assistance within CoEs. CONCLUSIONS: Policy recommendations were developed in areas previously recognised as having gaps. Their implementation is expected to strengthen and improve current care provision for rare disease patients. In member states where national plans and strategies are being developed, it is recommended to replicate the methodological approach used in this study as it has proven to be a helpful tool in rare disease centres of expertise policy development.

The use of epidemiological measures to estimate the impact of primary prevention interventions on CHD, stroke and cancer outcomes: experiences from Herefordshire, UK.

BACKGROUND: CHD, stroke and cancers are the major causes of mortality in the UK and are responsible for significant amounts of morbidity and healthcare costs. This study examines the proportion of CHD, stroke and cancer owing to specific risk factors in Herefordshire, UK. It estimates the population impact of a number of interventions being implemented to reduce these risk factors, through the NHS Health Check program and the Herefordshire Health Improvement Plan. The present study also aims to demonstrate the value of epidemiological measures in providing evidence-based public health information in policy-making to aid decision makers when prioritizing investments and optimal use of resources. METHODS: The epidemiological measures-'Population Attributable Risk' and 'Population Impact Measures'-were used to assess the impact of interventions to reduce the burden of CHD, stroke and cancer. RESULTS: Implementation of the NHS Health Check program will prevent 63 CHD events, 90 MI events and 125 stroke events, and one lung cancer over a period of 5 years. Reducing specific risk factors by 5% annually through the Health Improvement Plan will prevent 65 CHD events, 25 MI events, 140 stroke events, four lung cancer, one breast cancer and four colorectal cancer cases in Herefordshire if targets are met over a period of 5 years. CONCLUSION: Physical inactivity and obesity are the major causes of CHD and stroke events (incidence and mortality) in Herefordshire. Their impact is greater than the combined effect of hypercholesterolemia and hypertension. Epidemiological measures used in this study proved to be excellent tools in providing evidence-based public health information. Their use is strongly recommended to support prioritization of primary prevention interventions.

Evaluation of national pandemic management policies-A hazard analysis of critical control points approach.

Analyses of pandemic preparedness policies revealed weaknesses in control systems of European nations. This reinforces the need to support countries in their endeavours to prevent and contain pandemics. A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) was applied to a generic plan to identify weaknesses in pandemic management policies, in order to develop recommendations for improving national pandemic management systems. Policy components considered in our analysis are command and control, early case detection and disease surveillance, and community containment management. The main critical areas identified in national pandemic control were: communication systems among all institutions and levels involved in pandemic management, guidelines and regulations describing how key personal and institutions should operate during a pandemic, training and dissemination of information to health care personnel involved in outbreak management. The HACCP analysis highlighted the need for agreed communication structures, clear division of responsibilities and harmonised policy guidelines at all levels of pandemic management. Being prepared is the key to successfully coordinate and implement response measures when a pandemic emerges.