U.S. school based sealant programs: Review of their most common characteristics

In the United States, dental caries is the most common chronic illness in children, occurring five to eight times as frequently as asthma. 11 Dental caries is an unmet health need, disproportionately affecting minority groups and individuals with low socio-economic status.15,34,36 School-Based Sealant Programs were developed to target children at risk, to provide dental services in a closer geographic area, to offer low cost preventive dental services, and to educate families about oral health and prevention.1 There is scientific, evidence based literature that shows the effectiveness of dental sealants preventing dental decay. 13^ Currently, there is no central source for cataloging School-Based Sealant Programs (SBSPs). Information is scattered around publications and documents. For instance, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) does not have information about all the existing SBSPs. ^ This literature review determined which are the most common characteristics of SBSPs in the U.S. and determined the extent to which these programs provide sealants to children of low socio-economic status. The method utilized was an electronic database search. Pubmed and EBESCO host databases were searched with Mesh terms like “dental school sealant programs”, “community dentistry”, “school based sealant programs” and “oral preventive programs”. Results were organized in terms of location, population served, providers, funding source and data shared. ^ The searches produced 77 studies, from which 40 were included in this work. Only 18 U.S. states were represented in the results; however these findings are very consistent with the Best Practice Approach – School Based Sealant Programs3. Most of the SBSPs provide their services to children from low income families, and utilized the lower labor cost providers permitted by their state regulations. The author intends that this thesis work will become an aide in the development of future programs, and as evidence for the sustainability of these programs.^

Implementing the Global Plan of Action on workers' health: Components to protect health care workers

Health care workers are at risk for percutaneous injuries and infection with blood born pathogens due to needle stick injuries with contaminated needles. The most common pathogens transmitted are hepatitis B, and C and HIV/AIDS. According to the WHO Global Plan of Action (GPA) a large gap exist between and within countries with regards to the health status of workers and their exposure to occupational risk. Less than 15% of the world's work forces have access to occupational health services despite the availability of effective interventions that can prevent occupational hazards, or protect and promote health in the workplace. The 2006 World Health Report declared that there is a global crisis in the health care work force. 1 in 400 of the world's health care workers work in Sub-Saharan Africa. 1 in 3 work in the U.S or Canada. The shortage of health care workers is worst in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. These countries have the highest burden of exposure to contaminated sharps. They rarely, if ever monitor the exposure or health impact of occupational ailments and injuries on workers. Many injuries are unreported. Occupational health services in the developing world are virtually non existent. Many health care workers leave their home countries and go to work in other countries where the working conditions, occupational services included, are better. The inability of countries to provide the necessary numbers of health care workers to provide a high level of health coverage is a threat to national and international public health security. Immunizing health care workers against hepatitis B and providing them PEP, PPE, education and safety training is an essential part of increasing and maintaining the numbers of health care workers in the critical shortage areas. ^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^

Prevalence and risk factors of asthma and work -related asthma among U.S. adults: Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988--1994

This cross-sectional analysis of the data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was conducted to determine the prevalence and determinants of asthma and wheezing among US adults, and to identify the occupations and industries at high risk of developing work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Separate logistic models were developed for physician-diagnosed asthma (MD asthma), wheezing in the previous 12 months (wheezing), work-related asthma and work-related wheezing. Major risk factors including demographic, socioeconomic, indoor air quality, allergy, and other characteristics were analyzed. The prevalence of lifetime MD asthma was 7.7% and the prevalence of wheezing was 17.2%. Mexican-Americans exhibited the lowest prevalence of MD asthma (4.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.2, 5.4) when compared to other race-ethnic groups. The prevalence of MD asthma or wheezing did not vary by gender. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that Mexican-Americans were less likely to develop MD asthma (adjusted odds ratio (ORa) = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.90) and wheezing (ORa = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44, 0.69) when compared to non-Hispanic whites. Low education level, current and past smoking status, pet ownership, lifetime diagnosis of physician-diagnosed hay fever and obesity were all significantly associated with MD asthma and wheezing. No significant effect of indoor air pollutants on asthma and wheezing was observed in this study. The prevalence of work-related asthma was 3.70% (95%CI: 2.88, 4.52) and the prevalence of work-related wheezing was 11.46% (95%CI: 9.87, 13.05). The major occupations identified at risk of developing work-related asthma and wheezing were cleaners; farm and agriculture related occupations; entertainment related occupations; protective service occupations; construction; mechanics and repairers; textile; fabricators and assemblers; other transportation and material moving occupations; freight, stock and material movers; motor vehicle operators; and equipment cleaners. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma and wheeze were 26% and 27% respectively. The major industries identified at risk of work-related asthma and wheeze include entertainment related industry; agriculture, forestry and fishing; construction; electrical machinery; repair services; and lodging places. The population attributable risk for work-related asthma was 36.5% and work-related wheezing was 28.5% for industries. Asthma remains an important public health issue in the US and in the other regions of the world. ^