Fluoridation for dental public health

This article reviews the means by which fluoride is supplied to populations. Many public health authorities provide fluoridated drinking water, with typical concentrations of fluoride of between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm. This has been found to be safe and effective, though differences in caries incidence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions are less than they were 50 years ago, because of the wider availability of fluoridated products to the whole population. Concerns about the effect of fluoride on bone density and associated conditions are reviewed and the general conclusion from considering the literature on fluoride is that there is almost no cause for concern. Alternatives to water as a means of delivering fluoride to the general public that are being used in a number of countries are salt and milk. These alternatives are also reviewed and have been shown to give satisfactory levels of protection against caries, though milk is shown to be less satisfactory than water as a vehicle for fluoride delivery. Milk is also less effective in providing fluoride to individuals in the population, and is less likely to be consumed by people in lower socio-economic groups, precisely those who suffer most from dental caries. This study concludes that mass water fluoridation remains an important contribution to good oral health throughout the community.

Ethnic variations in the experiences of mental health service users in England: results of a national patient survey programme

Background: Minority ethnic groups in the UK are reported to have a poor experience of mental health services, but comparative information is scarce. Aims: To examine ethnic differences in patients’ experience of community mental health services. Method: Trusts providing mental health services in England conducted surveys in 2004 and 2005 of users of community mental health services. Multiple regression was used to examine ethnic differences in responses. Results: About 27 000 patients responded to each of the surveys, of whom 10% were of minority ethnic origin. In the 2004 survey, age, living alone, the 2004 survey, age, living alone, detention and hospital admissions were stronger predictors of patient experience than ethnicity. Self-reported mental health status had the strongest explanatory effect. In the 2005 survey, the main negative differences relative to the White British were for Asians. Conclusions: Ethnicity had a smaller effect on patient experience than other variables. Relative to the White British, the Black group did not report negative experiences whereas the Asian group were most likely to respond negatively. However, there is a need for improvements in services for minority ethnic groups, including access to talking therapies and better recording of ethnicity.