OBJECTIVE: To pilot workplace oral health promotion activities among staff working in the aged care sector, report their impact and explore participants' views on the factors that contribute to participation and effectiveness.
METHODS: This study comprised three phases: (i) the development and face validation of the resources, (ii) a 3-h educational session and (iii) five interview sessions with participants 4-6 weeks following the education session. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Eleven community-aged care workforce were invited to five feedback sessions. Ten participants were female and ranged in age from 18 to 64. All participants gave favourable comments about the content and delivery of the training session and accompanying resources. The participants felt that the benefits of WOHP include improved staff knowledge, awareness and oral care routine, the ability to share (and put into practice) the gained knowledge and information with their dependants, a lower risk of having poor oral health that adversely affects their well-being and work tasks, and potentially beneficial impacts on the organization's staff roster. Their attendance in the WOHP was facilitated by being paid to attend and scheduling the sessions during work time. Future WOHP suggestions include the possibility of a one-stop dental check-up at the workplace or staff dental care discounts from local dental practitioners and combining oral health with other health promotion activities.
CONCLUSIONS: Planning and implementing WOHP was deemed acceptable and feasible in this study context and successfully achieved short-term impacts among community-aged care workers. Appropriate times and locations, organizational arrangements and a variety of delivery options contributed to successful programme planning and implementation.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies of any design that reported on the preferred and actual place of care and death of patients with cancer in LMICs. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated pooled prevalences, with 95% CI, with subgroup analyses for region and risk of bias.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Of 3,837 patients with cancer, 62% (95% CI, 49 to 75) preferred to die at home; however, the prevalence of actual home death was 37% (95% CI, 13 to 60). Subgroup analyses found that preferences for home as place of death varied from 55% (95% CI, 41 to 69) for Asia to 64% (95% CI, 57 to 71) for South America and 72% (95% CI, 48 to 97) for Africa. The concordance between the preferred and actual place of death was 48% (95% CI, 41 to 55) for South Africa and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) for Malaysia. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of preferred home death included performance status and patients with breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: There is very little literature from LMICs on the preferences for end-of-life place of care and death among patients with cancer. Rigorous research is needed to help understand how preferences of patients with cancer change during their journey through cancer.