• Energy Research
• Restricted close
• 3. Good health close
• NL close
• DE close
• CA close
• BE close

The potential impacts of climate change on human health in sub-Saharan Africa are wide-ranging, complex, and largely adverse. The region's Indigenous peoples are considered to be at heightened risk given their relatively poor health outcomes, marginal social status, and resource-based livelihoods; however, little attention has been given to these most vulnerable of the vulnerable. This paper contributes to addressing this gap by taking a bottom-up approach to assessing health vulnerabilities to climate change in two Batwa Pygmy communities in rural Uganda. Rapid Rural Appraisal and PhotoVoice field methods complemented by qualitative data analysis were used to identify key climate-sensitive, community-identified health outcomes, describe determinants of sensitivity at multiple scales, and characterize adaptive capacity of Batwa health systems. The findings stress the importance of human drivers of vulnerability and adaptive capacity and the need to address social determinants of health in order to reduce the potential disease burden of climate change.

The potential impacts of climate change on human health in sub-Saharan Africa are wide-ranging, complex, and largely adverse. The region's Indigenous peoples are considered to be at heightened risk given their relatively poor health outcomes, marginal social status, and resource-based livelihoods; however, little attention has been given to these most vulnerable of the vulnerable. This paper contributes to addressing this gap by taking a bottom-up approach to assessing health vulnerabilities to climate change in two Batwa Pygmy communities in rural Uganda. Rapid Rural Appraisal and PhotoVoice field methods complemented by qualitative data analysis were used to identify key climate-sensitive, community-identified health outcomes, describe determinants of sensitivity at multiple scales, and characterize adaptive capacity of Batwa health systems. The findings stress the importance of human drivers of vulnerability and adaptive capacity and the need to address social determinants of health in order to reduce the potential disease burden of climate change.

Policymakers at global level recognise that household biomass use in developing countries has significant health consequences. However, it is unclear how local-level health professionals perceive and respond to such health effects. This paper which is derived from the findings of a larger study on perceptions and responses to the harmful health effects of carrying heavy firewood loads and to smoke from cooking fires is based on a study conducted in South Africa among managers of health programmes and community nurses of Qaukeni and Mhlontlo municipalities in rural Eastern Cape. Interviews and participant observations were conducted in 2009 using ethnographic grounded theory approaches. In addition to a 10-month period of ethnographic fieldwork, ten programme managers and nurses in two villages were interviewed about health patterns in the villages that they serve, their perceptions of, and responses to the health effects of carrying heavy firewood loads, and inhalation of smoke from wood and dung cooking fires, their professional qualifications and experience, their own household energy use; and observations made as they served clinic clients. Results show that these programme managers and nurses perceive the health effects of carrying heavy loads of firewood and of cooking smoke as minor. Sometimes, nurses give women symptomatic relief for musculoskeletal pain resulting from carrying heavy loads. We posit that their perceptions are derived from customary neglect of work-related health and non-communicable diseases, cultural interpretations of womanhood, limited access to relevant information, and limited interactions between health and energy sector professionals. We conclude that culturally and gender-sensitive awareness programmes are needed for local-level health professionals to effectively address health effects of biomass collection and use. This paper provides new insights into overlooked differences between globally-driven initiatives to address health effects of biomass use and local perceptions.

Policymakers at global level recognise that household biomass use in developing countries has significant health consequences. However, it is unclear how local-level health professionals perceive and respond to such health effects. This paper which is derived from the findings of a larger study on perceptions and responses to the harmful health effects of carrying heavy firewood loads and to smoke from cooking fires is based on a study conducted in South Africa among managers of health programmes and community nurses of Qaukeni and Mhlontlo municipalities in rural Eastern Cape. Interviews and participant observations were conducted in 2009 using ethnographic grounded theory approaches. In addition to a 10-month period of ethnographic fieldwork, ten programme managers and nurses in two villages were interviewed about health patterns in the villages that they serve, their perceptions of, and responses to the health effects of carrying heavy firewood loads, and inhalation of smoke from wood and dung cooking fires, their professional qualifications and experience, their own household energy use; and observations made as they served clinic clients. Results show that these programme managers and nurses perceive the health effects of carrying heavy loads of firewood and of cooking smoke as minor. Sometimes, nurses give women symptomatic relief for musculoskeletal pain resulting from carrying heavy loads. We posit that their perceptions are derived from customary neglect of work-related health and non-communicable diseases, cultural interpretations of womanhood, limited access to relevant information, and limited interactions between health and energy sector professionals. We conclude that culturally and gender-sensitive awareness programmes are needed for local-level health professionals to effectively address health effects of biomass collection and use. This paper provides new insights into overlooked differences between globally-driven initiatives to address health effects of biomass use and local perceptions.

AbstractBackground: Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution is still “the leading oral antiseptic” for controlling gingivitis. Side effects, however, limit the acceptability to users and the long‐term employment of a 0.2% CHX antiseptic in preventive dentistry. This stimulated the development of new formulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect on plaque inhibition and taste perception of two commercially available mouthrinses (0.12% CHX non‐alcohol base with 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride (Cpc) versus 0.2% CHX alcohol base).Methods: The study was designed as a single‐blind, randomized two group parallel experiment, to compare two different commercially available mouthrinses, during a 3‐day plaque accumulation model. Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received a thorough dental prophylaxis at the beginning of the test period. Over a 72‐h experimental non‐brushing period, during which subjects abstained from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene, one group (test) used a 15 ml alcohol free 0.12% CHX (=18 mg) mouthrinse on a Cpc base (Perioaid®, CHX⊕Cpc), twice daily for 30 s. The other group (control) used a 10 ml 0.2% CHX (=20 mg) mouthrinse on an 11.8% ethanol alcohol base (Corsodyl®, CHX⊕Alc), twice daily for 60 s. After 72 h of plaque formation, the amount of plaque was evaluated. By the use of visual analogue scale, the subjects were asked for their appreciation of the taste of the mouthrinse they had used.Results: The mean plaque index for the CHX⊕Cpc group was 0.97 and for the CHX⊕Alc group 0.78. After 72 h of non‐brushing, there was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two groups. The answers to the questions (taste perception and after‐taste) showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for taste appreciation on a scale from very bad to very good taste (0–10) were 5.92 for the CHX⊕Cpc group and 4.10 for the CHX⊕Alc group (p=0.02). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for the after‐taste on a scale from very short to very long (0–10) were 7.24 for the CHX⊕Cpc group and 5.38 for the CHX⊕Alc group.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study design, it can be concluded that rinsing with a 0.12% CHX mouthrinse on a non‐alcohol base with 0.05% Cpc (Perio‐Aid®) is not significantly different from rinsing with a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse on an alcohol base (Corsodyl®). It appears that the subjects appreciated the taste of the non‐alcohol CHX solution better but the after‐taste of the rinse remained longer in the mouth.

AbstractBackground: Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution is still “the leading oral antiseptic” for controlling gingivitis. Side effects, however, limit the acceptability to users and the long‐term employment of a 0.2% CHX antiseptic in preventive dentistry. This stimulated the development of new formulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect on plaque inhibition and taste perception of two commercially available mouthrinses (0.12% CHX non‐alcohol base with 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride (Cpc) versus 0.2% CHX alcohol base).Methods: The study was designed as a single‐blind, randomized two group parallel experiment, to compare two different commercially available mouthrinses, during a 3‐day plaque accumulation model. Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received a thorough dental prophylaxis at the beginning of the test period. Over a 72‐h experimental non‐brushing period, during which subjects abstained from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene, one group (test) used a 15 ml alcohol free 0.12% CHX (=18 mg) mouthrinse on a Cpc base (Perioaid®, CHX⊕Cpc), twice daily for 30 s. The other group (control) used a 10 ml 0.2% CHX (=20 mg) mouthrinse on an 11.8% ethanol alcohol base (Corsodyl®, CHX⊕Alc), twice daily for 60 s. After 72 h of plaque formation, the amount of plaque was evaluated. By the use of visual analogue scale, the subjects were asked for their appreciation of the taste of the mouthrinse they had used.Results: The mean plaque index for the CHX⊕Cpc group was 0.97 and for the CHX⊕Alc group 0.78. After 72 h of non‐brushing, there was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two groups. The answers to the questions (taste perception and after‐taste) showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for taste appreciation on a scale from very bad to very good taste (0–10) were 5.92 for the CHX⊕Cpc group and 4.10 for the CHX⊕Alc group (p=0.02). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for the after‐taste on a scale from very short to very long (0–10) were 7.24 for the CHX⊕Cpc group and 5.38 for the CHX⊕Alc group.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study design, it can be concluded that rinsing with a 0.12% CHX mouthrinse on a non‐alcohol base with 0.05% Cpc (Perio‐Aid®) is not significantly different from rinsing with a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse on an alcohol base (Corsodyl®). It appears that the subjects appreciated the taste of the non‐alcohol CHX solution better but the after‐taste of the rinse remained longer in the mouth.

Background: The present paper describes the results of a rating study performed by a group of European Union (EU) drug experts using the multi-criteria decision analysis model for evaluating drug harms. Methods: Forty drug experts from throughout the EU scored 20 drugs on 16 harm criteria. The expert group also assessed criteria weights that would apply, on average, across the EU. Weighted averages of the scores provided a single, overall weighted harm score (range: 0–100) for each drug. Results: Alcohol, heroin and crack emerged as the most harmful drugs (overall weighted harm score 72, 55 and 50, respectively). The remaining drugs had an overall weighted harm score of 38 or less, making them much less harmful than alcohol. The overall weighted harm scores of the EU experts correlated well with those previously given by the UK panel. Conclusion: The outcome of this study shows that the previous national rankings based on the relative harms of different drugs are endorsed throughout the EU. The results indicates that EU and national drug policy measures should focus on drugs with the highest overall harm, including alcohol and tobacco, whereas drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy should be given lower priority including a lower legal classification.

Background: The present paper describes the results of a rating study performed by a group of European Union (EU) drug experts using the multi-criteria decision analysis model for evaluating drug harms. Methods: Forty drug experts from throughout the EU scored 20 drugs on 16 harm criteria. The expert group also assessed criteria weights that would apply, on average, across the EU. Weighted averages of the scores provided a single, overall weighted harm score (range: 0–100) for each drug. Results: Alcohol, heroin and crack emerged as the most harmful drugs (overall weighted harm score 72, 55 and 50, respectively). The remaining drugs had an overall weighted harm score of 38 or less, making them much less harmful than alcohol. The overall weighted harm scores of the EU experts correlated well with those previously given by the UK panel. Conclusion: The outcome of this study shows that the previous national rankings based on the relative harms of different drugs are endorsed throughout the EU. The results indicates that EU and national drug policy measures should focus on drugs with the highest overall harm, including alcohol and tobacco, whereas drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy should be given lower priority including a lower legal classification.