Search

The aim of this introductory paper is to provide an overview of key methodological developments in social and behavioural research in oral health. In the first section, we provide a brief historical perspective on research in the field. In the second section, we outline key methodological issues and introduce the seven papers in the theme. Conceptual models can contextualize research findings and address the 'why' and 'how' instead of 'what' and 'how many'. Many models exist, albeit they need to be evaluated (and adapted) for use in oral health research and in specific settings. The increasing availability of big data can facilitate this with data linkage. Through data linkage, it is possible to explore and understand in a broader capacity the array of factors that influence oral health outcomes and how oral health can influences other factors. With advances in statistical approaches, it is feasible to consider casual inferences and to quantify these effects. There is a need for not only individual efforts to embrace causal inference research but also systematic and structural changes in the field to yield substantial results. The value of qualitative research in co‐producing knowledge with and from human participants in addressing 'the how' and 'the why' factors is also key. There have been calls to employ more sophisticated qualitative methods together with mixed methods approaches as ways of helping to address the complex or Wicked Problems in population oral health. In the final section, we outline possible future methodological directions in social and behavioural oral health research including participatory approaches and the development of core outcome sets. Our overriding goal in the paper is to facilitate a critical debate in relation to methodological issues which can be used to improve understanding and generate knowledge in population oral health and that this, in turn, will help inform oral health policy and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent advances in the psychological understanding of health‐related behaviour have focused on producing a comprehensive framework to model such behaviour. The Capability‐Opportunity‐Motivation‐Behaviour (COM‐B) and its associated Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) allow researchers to classify psychological and behavioural constructs in a consistent and transferable manner across studies. Aim: To identify oral and dental health‐related studies that have used the TDF and/or COM‐B as frameworks to guide research and examine the ways in which these concepts have been practically used in such research. Method: Narrative review of published literature. To be included, the paper had to (1) state that the TDF or COM‐B had been used and to have targeted at least one construct identified in either framework, (2) include primary empirical data, (3) focus on a behaviour directly related to oral or dental‐related health (eg brushing, applying fluoride varnish, flossing) and/or attitudes, intentions and beliefs related to the behaviour. Studies could include any research design, and participants of any age or gender and include patients, parents or dental health professionals. Findings: Nine studies were identified that had drawn on the COM‐B and/or TDF as the framework for their research. Seven of the studies were based on the TDF only, with one employing both the COM‐B and Health Belief Model, and one using the TDF with COM‐B. The nine studies covered a broad range of oral health‐related behaviours including child tooth brushing, fluoride varnish application and non‐ or micro‐invasive management of proximal caries lesions. The populations in the studies included dentists, dental teams and parents of children. All studies adopted only a subset of the constructs within the TDF, often without justification. Conclusions: It is encouraging that oral health researchers are adopting standardized psychological frameworks to develop their research and oral health interventions. Future work should build on the small number of studies identified in this review and consider using standardized tools to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing methods in social [oral] epidemiology primarily utilize statistical models that assume static characteristics of individuals and environments. While useful, an over reliance on these methods in the social and behavioural sciences can unnecessarily limit perspective and progress as even the most advanced statistical methods cannot capture complex behaviour over time given that systems evolve, environments respond, and behaviours and beliefs crystalize or deteriorate based on a variety of social, environmental and access variables. The recent consensus statement on Future Directions for the Behavioral and Social Sciences in Oral Health acknowledges that dental, oral and craniofacial health emerge from the complex interplay of multiple factors at multiple levels over time and highlights the need for the incorporation of new and underutilized methodologies. Complex Systems Science offers a suite of tools and methodologies that are responsive to the generative mechanisms and processes that underlie population distributions of oral health and disease. Specifically, they assume intricate, dynamic interactions between individuals and groups, they facilitate the study and synthesis of interconnections between people (e.g. patients, healthcare providers and policy makers), how these change over time, any differences across settings, and provide an opportunity to guide future longitudinal data collection and intervention science more effectively. This paper aims to provide an introduction to foundational principles of complex systems, complex systems thinking, and methods found in complex systems science, including social network analysis, system dynamics models and agent‐based models, and offers perspectives on the challenges faced and opportunities afforded in the incorporation of these methods into the population oral health sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major sociohistorical processes have profound effects on oral health, with impacts experienced through structural oppression manifested in policies and practices across the lifespan. Structural oppression drives oral health inequities and impacts population‐level oral health. In this global perspective paper, we challenge old assumptions about oral health inequities, address misleading conceptualizations in their description and operation and reframe oral health through the lens of intersecting systems of oppression. Furthermore, we emphasize the need for oral health researchers to explore causal pathways through which oppression harms oral health and engage in social science concepts to understand the root causes of oral health inequities fully. Finally, we call on policymakers, dental scholars and decision makers to consider health equity in all policies and to take a systems‐oriented approach to effectively address oral health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the priority given by researchers working in the field of behavioural, epidemiological and health services research to key aspects of research in oral health and inequalities. Method: Survey of registrants at the Behavioural Epidemiological and Health Services Research group of the International Association for Dental Research (BEHSR/IADR) Summit October 2020. Findings: The highest ranking for priority was given to 'Testing interventions to reducing oral health inequalities', and within this area to the exploration of public health approaches to reducing such disparities. Lower ranking priorities included 'Describing inequalities within countries' and 'Describing the mechanisms by which inequality produces poor health'. Conclusions: Registrants at the (BEHSR/IADR) Summit October 2020 gave priority to testing interventions which will seek to reduce oral health inequalities, particularly through public health approaches such as creating policy change and community level interventions. Epidemiological research describing inequalities within countries was given a lower priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavioural and social oral health intervention has made great strides in intervention development and testing. Future research should focus on applying successful methods and interventions of disciplines outside oral health to oral health research and practice as well as focus on raising the visibility of oral health research by applying our established methods and interventions to outside domains. Behavioural and social oral health is strategically positioned to be a leader across several research domains, perhaps most prominently in digital health, disparities and developing and testing theories and frameworks, given the progress that has already been made, and significant investment in these areas from funders like the National Institute for Craniofacial Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]