No-shows for scheduled appointments are a frequent occurrence, creating unused appointment slots and reducing patient quality of care and access to services while increasing loss to follow-up and medical costs. The aim of our study was to determine the factors that lead to patients missing their dental appointments in Eastern Province Military Hospitals, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The study population included military personnel and their families attending the dental clinics of these hospitals. In our study, the percentage of missed appointments was 58.1%, while 54.4% of participants canceled dental appointments in the past. Thirty-six percent preferred morning appointments while 56% preferred an afternoon appointment and were likely to miss a morning appointment if given one. The most common reasons for missing an appointment were forgetting about it (24.3%) and the inability to get time off either from work or school (15.4%); 1.5% of patients stated they had a bad dental experience and feared dental treatment while the unavailability of transport accounted for 0.7% of patients. Of the reasons given for canceling an appointment, the inability to get time off from work/school was the most common (22.1%) while a dislike for treatment was the least common (0.7%). Canceling an appointment was significantly correlated with missing an appointment among the surveyed sample (P=0.00). In our research, 60.3% of participants still relied on their personal diary to remember appointments, which could be a reason for the high rate of missed appointments. Fifty-nine percent of respondents felt that missing an appointment was important to them, while 72% stated that missed appointments could affect the work of the clinic but still believed that automatic appointments should be given to patients who missed them and a change be made accordingly. Since major factors included a lack of a reminder message and appointments scheduled at inconvenient timings, some steps that can help reduce the frequency of missed appointments include sending a reminder message to patients, giving preference to their schedules for appointments, giving patients shorter appointments, reducing intervals between subsequent appointments, and educating patients regarding the treatment plan, to reduce anxiety.
Open Access Original Article
Background and objective Head and neck cancer can arise from any site like hypo-pharynx, oro-pharynx, lip, oral cavity, or larynx. Almost 90% of them are head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). In the current project, the goal was to determine the frequency of acute side effects in terms of mucositis during and immediately post-irradiation period in patients receiving concurrent three-dimensional (3D) radiotherapy in a tertiary care hospital. Methodology This descriptive case series with 106 enrolled patients was carried out from December 2019 to May 2020 at the Department of Radiation Oncology following approval. All patients were given radiotherapy or chemo-radio-therapy as per the clinician's advice and hospital protocol. All patients were evaluated at pre radiation time, at weekly intervals during treatment and at 11 weeks from 1st radiation fraction. Data was entered and analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Chi-square and Fisher's exact test was applied as p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results In the present study, all patients (n=106) showed a mean age of 57.8 ± 8.3 years. There was a gradual increase in grades of mucositis in all patients after treatments until seven weeks. After one month of post-treatment, a decrease in grades of mucositis was observed in all patients. Conclusion Acute side effects appeared in all patients receiving 3D radiation therapy (RT) although the treatment response was good. Hence, we concluded it has a high incidence of treatment-related toxicities but it is safe.
Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of oral progesterone and micronized progesterone pessary in reducing the spontaneous preterm births incidence. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial Place and Duration: Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department of Combined Military Hospital, Peshawar from January 2021 to December 2021. Methods: Total 112 pregnant females were presented in this study. Included females were aged between 18-45 years. After taking informed written consent, detailed demographics of enrolled cases included age, BMI, parity and gestational age was recorded. Females were divided in two groups. Group I received oral progesterone in 56 females and group II received micronized progesterone pessary. Post-operative outcomes among both groups were assessed. SPSS 23.0 was used to analyze all data. Results: Among 112 cases, 35 (31.3%) had age 18-25 years, 45 (40.2%) females had age 26-35 years and 32 (28.6%) cases had age 36-45 years. 64 (57.1%) patients had BMI <25kg/m2 and 48 (42.9%) cases had BMI >25kg/m2. Mean parity in group I was 2.5±1.23 and in group II parity was 1.72±3.16. Mean gestational age of the patients in group I was 33.16±10.42 weeks and in group II mean gestational age was 34.17±8.23 weeks. Frequency of c-section in both groups were higher as compared to vaginal delivery with p value <0.003. Mean time of prolongation of pregnancy in group I was 18.22±6.33 days and in group II mean time was 30.7±5.47 days. We found that micronized progesterone cyclogest pessary was effective in terms of reducing NICU admissions, maternal systemic complications, preterm C-section, tocolysis use, side effects, intraventricular haemorrhage and perinatal mortality as compared to oral progesterone. Conclusion: Preventive micronized progesterone pessary was found to be more effective than oral progesterone (dydrogesterone) in reducing premature birth among women at high-risk of premature delivery. Keywords: Oral Progesterone, Micronized Progesterone Pessary, Preterm Birth, Side Effects
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.