4.1 Article

Concepts of risk in dental public health

期刊

COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 240-247

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00231.x

关键词

geographic targeting; high risk; population health; risk; risk factor; risk indicator; social determinants; targeting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this paper is to review the concepts of risk as we use them today in dental public health practice, and to suggest that we should broaden our view of risk. Use of terms like risk factor in the literature can be quite vague, and it is recommended that a clear definition of that and related terms be adhered to. A broader view of risk in dental research would take in the concepts of social determinants of health and population health. While some progress has been made in our understanding of these issues, better knowledge would give the public health administrator more readily available information to use in program planning. The skewed distribution of caries in the high-income countries has led to the emergence of targeted prevention programs toward those considered to be at high risk. In public health programs, targeting at the individual level is not practical: the risk assessment methods are not yet sufficiently precise, and even when individuals are identified there are practical problems with schools and with the children themselves. (For private practice, however, high-risk child patients can be identified as those with at least one approximal lesion in permanent teeth.) For public health purposes, an argument is made for geographic targeting, i.e. identification of areas of social deprivation where whole schools or school districts can be targeted. Geographic targeting is something between individual targeting and whole-population approaches. Ideally, geographic targeting would supplement population measures like water fluoridation and dental health education. Examples of geographic targeting from Ohio and New York are presented as illustrations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据