The objective of this study was to verify whether oral conditions (tooth loss, periodontal disease, dental caries) are negatively associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults. A search was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, and LILACS databases until the end of July 2016 with no date restrictions. Quantitative observational studies written in English were included and data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. HRQoL was investigated as the outcome, and tooth loss, periodontal diseases, and dental caries were exposures. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used and the quality of the selected studies was assessed by using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics assessment and review instrument (JBI-MAStARI). Twenty-one studies were included. The sample sizes ranged from 88 to 15,501 subjects; 20 studies were cross-sectional designs, while 1 was a case-control study. Case definitions of the exposures were different across the studies, mainly for tooth loss, which was defined according to 11 different criteria. Fifteen studies were of “high” and 6 of “medium” quality. Eight HRQoL instruments were identified, and the most frequent was the EuroQol (n = 8). Ten of 16 studies reported a negative impact of tooth loss on HRQoL. Four of 7 studies reported that periodontal disease impairs HRQoL, and 1 study showed that periodontal disease is positively associated with HRQoL. All studies that assessed dental caries reported a negative association between this condition and HRQoL. Despite the different definitions and measures of tooth loss and dental caries, the majority of the available evidence reported a negative impact of these conditions on HRQoL. Mixed and inconclusive findings were observed for the association between periodontal disease and HRQoL. Longitudinal prospective studies are suggested to improve the strength of the findings.

Background: Research should inform clinical decision-making and evidence-based practice for all health professionals. To build research capacity among all health professionals, there is a need to measure the levels of research capacity and identify the gaps and needs of health-care professionals. The aim of the study was to better understand the research culture and capacity of health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) in Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. Methods: A research capacity and culture tool (RCCT) survey was electronically distributed to all health staff in WSLHD. Data were collected between November 2016 and January 2017. Participants were surveyed through a 10-point Likert scale that measured research capacity at the individual, team and organisational levels. Results: A total of 393 health staff responded to the study: allied health practitioners (46.3%), nursing staff (35.4%) and medical practitioners (18.3%). Females made 76% of the sample, and 54% were aged between 35 and 54 years. Individual responses were different across professions, with an average median score for medical 6.3 (95% CI 5.8– 6.9), allied health 5.3 (95% CI 4.9– 5.7) and nursing 4.5 (95% CI 4.1– 5.0) after adjustment for age and gender. Team responses for medical staff (average median score 5.9 95% CI 5.3– 6.4) were higher than allied health (4.1 95% CI 3.7– 4.6) and nursing (4.3 95% CI 3.8– 4.8), after adjusting for age and gender. However, there were no differences between the three professions for the organisational responses. Allied health and nursing staff were less confident in obtaining research funding, submitting ethics applications, writing for publication and mentoring colleagues about research. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the individual research capacity for medical, allied health and nursing professionals are different. Research capacity building needs to be individually tailored to the specific needs of each profession. This research will inform future capacity building activities and training for health professionals in a large public health organisation of Sydney, Australia.

Background: Health practitioner regulation (HPR) systems are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in supporting health workforce availability, accessibility, quality, and sustainability, while promoting patient safety. This review aimed to identify evidence on the design, delivery and effectiveness of HPR to inform policy decisions.Methods: We conducted an integrative analysis of literature published between 2010 and 2021. Fourteen databases were systematically searched, with data extracted and synthesized based on a modified Donabedian framework.Findings: This large-scale review synthesized evidence from a range of academic (n = 410) and grey literature (n = 426) relevant to HPR. We identified key themes and findings for a series of HPR topics organized according to our structures–processes–outcomes conceptual framework. Governance reforms in HPR are shifting towards multi-profession regulators, enhanced accountability, and risk-based approaches; however, comparisons between HPR models were complicated by a lack of a standardized HPR typology. HPR can support government workforce strategies, despite persisting challenges in cross-border recognition of qualifications and portability of registration. Scope of practice reform adapted to modern health systems can improve access and quality. Alternatives to statutory registration for lower-risk health occupations can improve services and protect the public, while standardized evaluation frameworks can aid regulatory strengthening. Knowledge gaps remain around the outcomes and effectiveness of HPR processes, including continuing professional development models, national licensing examinations, accreditation of health practitioner education programs, mandatory reporting obligations, remediation programs, and statutory registration of traditional and complementary medicine practitioners.Conclusion: We identified key themes, issues, and evidence gaps valuable for governments, regulators, and health system leaders. We also identified evidence base limitations that warrant caution when interpreting and generalizing the results across jurisdictions and professions. Themes and findings reflect interests and concerns in high-income Anglophone countries where most literature originated. Most studies were descriptive, resulting in a low certainty of evidence. To inform regulatory design and reform, research funders and governments should prioritize evidence on regulatory outcomes, including innovative approaches we identified in our review. Additionally, a systematic approach is needed to track and evaluate the impact of regulatory interventions and innovations on achieving health workforce and health systems goals.

Objectives: Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities experience widespread inequalities in dental care utilization. While, several studies have reported factors contributing to such inequalities, a synthesis of evidence is lacking for CALD carers. This review examined the barriers and facilitators to dental care utilization among CALD carers.Methods: Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for dental utilization and related factors, without geographic limitations. An integrated mixed‐method design was adopted, where both qualitative and quantitative findings were combined into a single synthesis. Critical appraisal was conducted using JBI tools, and a Universal Health Coverage (UHC) framework guided the synthesis approach. Reliability and researcher triangulation occurred throughout the conduct of this review.Results: A total of 20 papers were included: qualitative (n = 8), quantitative (n = 8) and mixed method (n = 4). Studies were from Australia, Canada, South Korea, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom and the United States. Three studies insufficiently reported confounding variables and nine qualitative papers lacked philosophical perspectives. Affordability was the foremost barrier at the system level, followed by psychosocial negative provider experiences and language/communication issues at the provider level. Cultural, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs were individual‐family level factors. Utilizing a UHC framework, the barriers and facilitators were aggregated at three levels; financial‐system, provider and individual‐family levels and illustrated in the rainbow model of CALD oral health.Conclusion: The review strengthens evidence for multilayered, system‐related policies and culturally sensitive provision of services for reducing oral healthcare inequalities in CALD carers.