Quality of life serves a reference against which you can measure the various domains of your own life or that of other individuals, and that can change over time. This definition of the World Health Organization encompasses many elements of daily living, including features of the individual and the environment around us, which can either be the social environment, the built environment, or other environmental aspects. This is one of the rationales for the special issue on “Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment”. This special issue is a joint project by the Centre of Expertise Health Innovation of the Hague University of Applied Sciences in The Netherlands. The main focus of this Special Issue is how optimising the interplay between people, the environment, and technology can enhance people’s quality of life. The focus of the contributions in this special issue is on the person or end‐user and his or her environment, both the physical, social, and digital environment, and on the interaction between (1) people, (2) health, care, and systems, and (3) technology. Recent advances in technology offer a wide range of solutions that support a healthy lifestyle, good quality of life, and effective and efficient healthcare processes, for a large number of end‐users, both patients/clients from minus 9 months until 100+ years of age, as well as practitioners/physicians. The design of new services and products is at the roots of serving the quality of life of people. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245106 (Editorial of Special Issue with the same title: "Quality of Life: The Interplay between Human Behaviour, Technology and the Environment")
MULTIFILE
Abstract: Teledentistry offers possibilities for improving efficiency and quality of care and supporting cost-effective healthcare systems. This umbrella review aims to synthesize existing systematic reviews on teledentistry and provide a summary of evidence of its clinical- and cost-effectiveness. A comprehensive search strategy involving various teledentistry-related terms, across seven databases, was conducted. Articles published until 24 April 2023 were considered. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. The quality of the included reviews was critically appraised with the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Out of 749 studies identified, 10 were included in this umbrella review. Two reviews focusing on oral-health outcomes revealed that, despite positive findings, there is not yet enough evidence for the long-term clinical effectiveness of teledentistry. Ten reviews reported on economic evaluations or costs, indicating that teledentistry is cost-saving. However, these conclusions were based on assumptions due to insufficient evidence on cost-effectiveness. The main limitation of our umbrella review was the critically low quality of the included reviews according to AMSTAR-2 criteria, with many of these reviews basing their conclusions on low-quality studies. This highlights the need for high-quality experimental studies (e.g., RCTs, factorial designs, stepped-wedge designs, SMARTs and MRTs) to assess teledentistry’s clinical- and cost-effectiveness.
Objective To use a qualitative approach to examine the perceptions of policy makers, general dental practitioners, dental hygienists, dental students and dental hygiene students in the Netherlands following the introduction of a direct access policy in 2006. Methods Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken with a variety of policy makers and clinicians in the Netherlands. These were recorded and transcribed verbatim into MS Word documents. The transcripts were line numbered and subjected to thematic analysis to develop a coding frame using NVivo. Results Four main themes are reported, which represent a subset of a policy analysis of direct access in the Netherlands. These were entitled: ‘The narrative of implementation’, ‘Working models of direct access’, ‘Relationship between old- and new-style hygienists’ and ‘Public attitudes’. Conclusions Working relationships within integrated practices in the Netherlands are positive, but attitudes towards independent practice are mixed. Good examples of collaborative working across practices were observed, but relationships between the professional bodies remain difficult seven years on since the introduction of the policy.
