Public attitudes toward stuttering in Europe: Within-country and between-country comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological research methods have been shown to be useful in determining factors that might predict commonly reported negative public attitudes toward stuttering. Previous research has suggested that stuttering attitudes of respondents from North America and Europe (i.e., "The West"), though characterized by stereotypes and potential stigma, are more positive than those from several other regions of the world. This inference assumes that public attitudes within various regions characterized by "The West" are similar. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the extent to which public stuttering attitudes are similar or different both within regions of three different European countries and between or among five different European countries or similar geographic areas. It also aimed to compare these European attitudes to attitudes from 135 samples around the world using a standard measure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using convenience sampling, 1111 adult respondents from eight different investigations completed the Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes-Stuttering (POSHA-S) in the dominant language of each country or area. In Study I, the authors compared attitudes within three different regions of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Italy, and Norway. In Study II, the authors compared attitudes between combined samples from Bosnia & Herzegovina, Italy, and Norway (with additional respondents from Sweden), and two other samples, one from Germany and the other from Ireland and England. RESULTS: Attitudes of adults from the three samples within Bosnia & Herzegovina, Italy, and Norway were remarkably similar. By contrast, attitudes between the five different countries or area were quite dramatically different. Demographic variables on the POSHA-S did not predict the rank order of these between-country/area differences. Compared to the POSHA-S worldwide database, European attitudes ranged from less positive than average (i.e., Italians) to more positive than average (i.e., Norwegians and Swedes). CONCLUSION: Factors related to national identity appear to play a significant role in differences in public attitudes in Europe and should be explored in future research.

Non-prescription (OTC) oral analgesics for acute pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Non-prescription (over-the-counter, or OTC) analgesics (painkillers) are used frequently. They are available in various brands, package sizes, formulations, and dose. They can be used for a range of different types of pain, but this overview reports on how well they work for acute pain (pain of short duration, usually with rapid onset). Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To examine published Cochrane reviews for information about the efficacy of pain medicines available without prescription using data from acute postoperative pain. METHODS: We identified OTC analgesics available in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA by examining online pharmacy websites. We also included some analgesics (diclofenac potassium, dexketoprofen, dipyrone) of importance in parts of the world, but not currently available in these jurisdictions.We identified systematic reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome numbers of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. From individual reviews we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also calculated the success rate to achieve at least 50% of maximum pain relief. We also examined the number of participants experiencing any adverse event, and whether the incidence was different from placebo. MAIN RESULTS: We found information on 21 different OTC analgesic drugs, doses, and formulations, using information from 10 Cochrane reviews, supplemented by information from one non-Cochrane review with additional information on ibuprofen formulations (high quality evidence). The lowest (best) NNT values were for combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol, with NNT values below 2. Analgesics with values close to 2 included fast acting formulations of ibuprofen 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg. Combinations of ibuprofen plus paracetamol had success rates of almost 70%, with dipyrone 500 mg, fast acting ibuprofen formulations 200 mg and 400 mg, ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg, and diclofenac potassium 50 mg having success rates above 50%. Paracetamol and aspirin at various doses had NNT values of 3 or above, and success rates of 11% to 43%. We found no information on many of the commonly available low dose codeine combinations.The proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event were generally not different from placebo, except for aspirin 1000 mg and (barely) ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg. For ibuprofen plus paracetamol, adverse event rates were lower than with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a body of reliable evidence about the efficacy of some of the most commonly available drugs and doses widely available without prescription. The postoperative pain model is predominantly pain after third molar extraction, which is used as the industry model for everyday pain. The proportion of people with acute pain who get good pain relief with any of them ranges from around 70% at best to less than 20% at worst; low doses of some drugs in fast acting formulations were among the best. Adverse events were generally no different from placebo. Consumers can make an informed choice based on this knowledge, together with availability and price. Headache and migraine were not included in this overview.