Internationaal onderzoek laat zien dat ingrijpende jeugdervaringen, ook wel Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE’s) genoemd, een sleutelrol spelen in de ontwikkeling van jeugdigen en hun (latere) psychische en fysieke gezondheid (o.a. Felitti et al., 1998; McLaughlin, 2016). Jeugdigen met verstandelijke beperkingen en hun ouders zijn helaas sterk ondervertegenwoordigd in internationaal onderzoek naar ACE’s, terwijl het belangrijk is dat de huidige inzichten ook kunnen bijdragen aan de verbetering van hun gezondheid en welzijn (o.a. Keesler, 2014; Northway, 2017). Uit verschillende studies blijkt namelijk dat mensen met een verstandelijke beperking vaker geestelijke en fysieke gezondheidsproblemen hebben (Northway, 2017). Daarnaast blijkt dat zij vaker worden blootgesteld aan een groter aantal ingrijpende levensgebeurtenissen (o.a. Emerson, 2015; Mason-Roberts et al., 2018) en dat deze blootstelling gerelateerd is aan een verhoogd risico op geestelijke gezondheidsproblemen (zie Vervoort-Schel et al., 2018 voor verwijzingen). De premisse van de ACE’s-studies is dat het voorkomen of verminderen van ingrijpende jeugdervaringen een positieve invloed heeft op gezondheid en welzijn in het leven (Northway, 2017). Het is veelbelovend om daar verder onderzoek naar te doen.
In recent years, both scientists and the general population gained awareness of the deep entanglement between finances, health, and well-being. People cannot be reduced to a set of problems to be tackled independently, thinking that somehow these solutions add up to solve the problem as a whole.4 Researchers pay increasing attention to how problems are related, and many lessons have been learned over time. Policy-makers and practitioners who understand the complex relationship between financial, physical, and mental well-being find themselves in the unique position to use these insights in how they design their programs. This paper provides an overview of academic and grey literature and the lessons we can learn from these studies.
BackgroundHyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used to treat various wound types. However, the possible beneficial and harmful effects of HBOT for acute wounds are unclear.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT compared to other interventions on wound healing and adverse effects in patients with acute wounds. To detect all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we searched five relevant databases up to March 2010. Trial selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis were conducted by two of the authors independently.ResultsWe included five trials, totaling 360 patients. These trials, with some methodologic flaws, included different kinds of wound and focused on different outcome parameters, which prohibited meta-analysis. A French trial (n = 36 patients) reported that significantly more crush wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT [relative risk (RR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–2.61]. Moreover, there were significantly fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03–2.50), and there was significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.11–2.61). In one of two American trials (n = 141) burn wounds healed significantly quicker with HBOT (P < 0.005) than with routine burn care. A British trial (n = 48) compared HBOT with usual care. HBOT resulted in a significantly higher percentage of healthy graft area in split skin grafts (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.35–9.11). In a Chinese trial (n = 145) HBOT did not significantly improve flap survival in patients with limb skin defects.ConclusionsHBOT, if readily available, appears effective for the management of acute, difficult to heal wounds.
