Early childhood caries in Switzerland: a marker of social inequalities.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood caries (ECC) is a marker of social inequalities worldwide because disadvantaged children are more likely to develop caries than their peers. This study aimed to define the ECC prevalence among children living in French-speaking Switzerland, where data on this topic were scarce, and to assess whether ECC was an early marker of social inequalities in this country. METHODS: The study took place between 2010 and 2012 in the primary care facility of Lausanne Children's Hospital. We clinically screened 856 children from 36 to 71 months old for ECC, and their caregivers (parents or legal guardians) filled in a questionnaire including items on socioeconomic background (education, occupation, income, literacy and immigration status), dental care and dietary habits. Prevalence rates, prevalence ratios and logistic regressions were calculated. RESULTS: The overall ECC prevalence was 24.8 %. ECC was less frequent among children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds than children from lower ones (prevalence ratios ≤ 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: This study reported a worrying prevalence rate of ECC among children from 36 to 71 months old, living in French-speaking Switzerland. ECC appears to be a good marker of social inequalities as disadvantaged children, whether from Swiss or immigrant backgrounds, were more likely to have caries than their less disadvantaged peers. Specific preventive interventions regarding ECC are needed for all disadvantaged children, whether immigrants or Swiss.

The vertical dimension of social relations and accurate interpersonal perception: A meta-analysis (Publishd online: 24 Oct. 2014)

There is little consensus regarding how verticality (social power, dominance, and status) is related to accurate interpersonal perception. The relation could be either positive or negative, and there could be many causal processes at play. The present article discusses the theoretical possibilities and presents a meta-analysis of this question. In studies using a standard test of interpersonal accuracy, higher socioeconomic status (SES) predicted higher accuracy defined as accurate inference about the meanings of cues; also, higher experimentally manipulated vertical position predicted higher accuracy defined as accurate recall of others' words. In addition, although personality dominance did not predict accurate inference overall, the type of personality dominance did, such that empathic/responsible dominance had a positive relation and egoistic/aggressive dominance had a negative relation to accuracy. In studies involving live interaction, higher experimentally manipulated vertical position produced lower accuracy defined as accurate inference about cues; however, methodological problems place this result in doubt.

Complexity of the Paradigms Present in Quality Criteria of Qualitative Research Grids

With qualitative methods being increasingly used in health science fields, numerous grids proposing criteria to evaluate the quality of this type of research have been produced. Expert evaluators deem that there is a lack of consensual tools to evaluate qualitative research. Based on the review of 133 quality criteria grids for qualitative research in health sciences, the authors present the results of a computerized lexicometric analysis, which confirms the variety of intra- and inter-grid constructions, including within the same field. This variety is linked to the authors' paradigmatic references underlying the criteria proposed. These references seem to be built intuitively, reflecting internal representations of qualitative research, thus making the grids and their criteria hard to compare. Consequently, the consensus on the definitions and the number of criteria becomes problematic. The paradigmatic and theoretical references of the grids should be specified so that users could better assess their contributions and limitations.

The biological embedding of social differences in ageing trajectories.

The occurrence of adult disease is related to lifetime experiences and, at least in part, to early life events. It is now well established that socioeconomic circumstances across the lifetime are major determinants of adult health and disease, and the current economic crisis is amplifying susceptibility to disease and unhealthy ageing in disadvantaged subgroups of the population. In adulthood, the gap between social groups is extensive in terms of mortality, functional performances and cognitive capacity. Since the occurrence of adult disease is related to lifetime experiences, including early life exposures, late-life preventive efforts may be of limited efficacy, particularly in disadvantaged subgroups. We now have the analytical tools to understand mechanisms that underlie life-long susceptibility to unhealthy ageing, and new knowledge can lead to better and more effective mechanisms to prevent diseases and reduce health inequalities. In this perspective, we first discuss the impact of recent changes in the understanding of chronic disease aetiology on our interpretation of the influence of life-course socioeconomic status (SES) on health and ageing. We then propose a model for integrating the exposome concept (the myriad of exposures derived from exogenous and endogenous sources) into the analysis of life-course socioeconomic differentials in ageing.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.