Search results

There is more to primary care than solely medical and nursing services. Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) explored the role of the professions of pharmacy, dental health and social care as examples of affiliate contributors to primary care in providing health advice and treatment to children and young people. Pharmacies are much used, but their value as a resource for children seems to be insufficiently recognised in most European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) countries. Advice from a pharmacist is invaluable, particularly because many medicines for children are only available off-label, or not available in the correct dose, access to a pharmacist for simple queries around certain health issues is often easier and quicker than access to a primary care physician or nursing service. Preventive dentistry is available throughout the EU and EEA, but there are few targeted incentives to ensure all children receive the service, and accessibility to dental treatment is variable, particularly for disabled children or those with specific health needs. Social care services are an essential part of health care for many extremely vulnerable children, for example those with complex care needs. Mapping social care services and the interaction with health services is challenging due to their fragmented provision and the variability of access across the EU and EEA. A lack of coherent structure of the health and social care interface requires parents or other family members to navigate complex systems with little assistance. The needs of pharmacy, dentistry and social care are varied and interwoven with needs from each other and from the healthcare system. Yet, because this inter-connectivity is not sufficiently recognised in the EU and EEA countries, there is a need for improvement of coordination and with the need for these services to focus more fully on children and young people.

This chapter investigates the issue of tattoos and examines whether the presence of visible tattoos still influences front line workers' employment chances. It finds that irrespective of a general societal shift towards greater tattoo acceptance and integration into modern society, negative stereotypes about tattoos still exist. Acceptance of tattoos in the workplace was dependent on the nature, size and location of the tattoo, as well as the occupation in question, and individual customer characteristics. Respondents were generally more accepting of tattoos on people nowadays. However, there was concern that employees with visible tattoos may still face stigma in the workplace. The findings revealed that most people will cover up a tattoo during an interview out of fear of negative discrimination by the interviewer.

Despite the biological and clinical advances in oral health, dental disease is still a problem for those of low socioeconomic (SE) status, as well as racial and ethnic minorities. In this study, we use the Andersen Behavioral Model of predisposing, enabling, and need factors to examine the effects of race, ethnicity, and income on dental care utilization. Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) household component and dental event data (n=8,685), we tested the hypothesis that longer survival or delay in dental care utilization is associated with both minority and lowered SE statuses. Analyses confirm that minority status, income, and education, are predictive of the delay in dental care utilization. This study lends support to the theorized assumption that there are racial and ethnic differences in the pattern of dental care utilization and that these differences as well as other factors contribute to disparity in dental care utilization.

While there are many articles in the popular press and practitioner journals concerning the Millennials (i.e., who they are and what we need to do about them), the academic literature on the subject is more limited. This chapter (1) extensively reviews this literature as published in practitioner, popular press, and academic journals across disciplines including psychology, sociology, management, human resources, and accounting education, and (2) surveys the generational study literature to determine what, if any, rigorous empirical studies exist to support (or refute) the existence of a distinct Millennial generational cohort. While the popular press is voluminous when it comes to avowed generational differences between Millennials and their predecessors, there is a paucity of peer-reviewed, academic, empirical work in the area and most of the latter suffers in some way from the overarching problem with generational research: the linear relationship between age, period, and generation that results in these variables being inherently entwined. However, even absent strong empirical evidence of a unique generational cohort, the literature offers extensive suggestions about what to do about the Millennials in our classrooms and work places. This chapter better informs accounting faculty about the traits of the current generation of accounting students that are supported by empirical research versus claims made in the popular press. It argues for a more reasoned “continuous improvement” approach to Millennials while offering some classroom suggestions for accounting faculty members.