Search

Abstract Background Poor oral health in children highlights the need for prevention and effective interventions. During late childhood and adolescence, peer relationships can play a vital role in adopting and maintaining positive health behaviours. Aim To identify the oral health outcomes of school-based student peer-led delivery of oral health interventions. Methods A search strategy was developed, piloted, and run in four electronic databases: Medline via Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL via EBSCO, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) using key concepts of peer, oral health and adolescent in the school context. Methodological quality was assessed using QuaDs quality assessment tool. All articles were independently screened by two researchers and data was analysed using narrative data synthesis. The PRISMA checklist complemented by aspects of the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) was used to report this systematic review. Results There were 7572 identified, 24 studies progressed to full-text review, ten studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Only six studies based their interventions on psychological & behavioural theory. Intervention delivered by peers showed improvements in both clinical and self-reported outcomes when compared to other delivery methods (e.g., professionals). Quality of included studies was reported according to QuaDs guidance. Conclusion Peer-led interventions were more effective in improving oral health status and behaviours when compared to other modes of delivery. Future research should assess if a bi-directional impact of peer-led interventions can be seen. Specifically, if there is added value for school-based student peer-leader's including their own oral health knowledge, skills, attitude and preventative behaviours.

BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic had a profound effect on the delivery of healthcare research. Covid-19 research was prioritised and many non-essential trials were paused. This study explores the engagement experiences of trial participants', PPIE contributors' and trial staff during the Covid-19 pandemic and towards recovery and restoring a diverse and balanced UK clinical trials portfolio.MethodsInterviews and focus groups were undertaken with PPIE contributors, trial participants and trial staff members from NIHR research trials across the UK (November 2020-June 2021) across portfolio specialities: Cancer, Oral and Dental Health, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Cardiovascular Disease, Neurological Disorders, Primary Care, and Conditions associated with susceptibility to Covid-19 (Diabetes, Stroke, Respiratory Disorders). Topic guides were developed for each participant group and interviews were conducted over Zoom. The transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis in NVivo (V.12).Results106 participants comprising, 45 PPIE contributors, 27 trial participants and 34 trial staff members were recruited. Three themes to engagement with trials during Covid-19 were developed. 1) Ensuring continued contact. Continued and tailored communication, having a trial point of contact and regular updates all enhanced trial engagement and retention. Patients' unfamiliarity with materials being sent electronically reduced engagement and trust. 2) A balanced move to remote consultations. Remote follow-up and monitoring were convenient and allowed for wider recruitment across the UK. Participants were more likely to discuss personal subjects in their own homes. Remote visits lacked a personal touch, some concerns over missed diagnoses or being unable to appreciate the situation, technical abilities or equipment failures were seen as barriers, especially for disadvantaged or older people. 3) The importance of feeling fully informed. Factors that supported attendance were knowledge about trial conduct adherence to Covid-19 regulations, social distancing, clear signage at the site and opportunities to ask questions. Barriers included not knowing what to expect and not feeling safe with rules and regulations.ConclusionsOur findings highlight a number of ways to future proof trial delivery against future pandemics or disruptions such as offering online options to participate in research, ensuring consistent communication between participants and the research team, making sure participants feel fully informed and the continued reassurance of safety in the clinical setting.

Abstract Background Despite significant progress in the control of oral diseases since the discovery of fluoride in the 1940s, dental caries and periodontal diseases continue to affect a significant proportion of the population, particularly socially disadvantaged and lower socioeconomic groups. The National Health Service in England provides preventive advice and treatments as part of an oral health assessment, and evidence-based guidance recommends the use of fissure sealants and topical fluorides in addition to dietary and oral hygiene advice. Although oral health promotion and education have become expected parts of dental care, the need for restorative treatments remains relatively high. We aimed to explore how barriers to preventive advice and treatment for NHS patients may be hindering the provision of prevention in oral health to patients from the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders. Methods Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken between March 2016-February 2017 with four groups of stakeholders: dentists, insurers, policy makers and patient participants. The interviews were analysed using deductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results Thirty-two stakeholders participated: 6 dentists, 5 insurers, 10 policy makers, and 11 patient participants. Four themes were developed: Perspectives on the clarity of oral health messaging and patient’s knowledge, The variability of prioritising prevention, Influences of the dentist-patient relationship on effective communication and Motivation to enact positive oral health behaviours. Conclusions The findings from this research indicate that patients’ knowledge of and priority placed on prevention is variable. Participants believed that more targeted education could be valuable in enhancing these. A patient’s relationship with their dentist could also influence their level of knowledge through the information shared with them, their receptivity to the preventive messages and the value they place on it. However, even with knowledge, prioritising prevention and a good patient-dentist relationship, without motivation to engage in preventive behaviour the impact of these is reduced. Our findings are discussed in relation to the COM-B model of behaviour change.

Objectives Current evidence suggests that periodontal disease could be a causal risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) onset and progression. Earlier periodontal intervention in individuals at risk of RA could provide a unique opportunity to prevent or delay the onset of RA. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of periodontal treatment as a measure to potentially prevent RA among at-risk individuals and healthcare professionals.Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with anti-CCP positive at-risk individuals (CCP+ at risk) and a range of healthcare professionals. At-risk participant data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis; subsequent coding of healthcare professional data was deductive, based on a preidentified set of constructs.Results Nineteen CCP+ at-risk and 11 healthcare professionals participated. Three themes (six subthemes) were identified: (1) understanding risk (knowledge of shared at-risk factors; information and communication); (2) oral health perceptions and experiences (personal challenges and opportunities for dental intervention and oral health maintenance; external barriers) and (3) oral health treatment and maintenance (making oral health changes with the aim of preventing RA; acceptability of participation in periodontal research).Conclusions Periodontal disease is common in individuals at risk of RA, but the impact of poor oral health may not be well understood. Oral health information should be tailored to the individual. CCP+ at-risk participants and healthcare professionals identified seeking dental treatment can be hindered by dental phobia, treatment costs or inability to access dentists. While CCP+ at-risk individuals may be reluctant to take preventive medications, a clinical trial involving preventive periodontal treatment is potentially acceptable.

This research aimed to identify and explore perceived challenges and facilitators to acquiring routinely collected oral healthcare data for research in six European countries with the aim of generating practical solutions for future initiatives. Seventeen participants from the UK, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland and the Netherlands participated who were either data requestors or data providers for the ADVOCATE project. Focus groups using the nominal group technique were undertaken using PESTLE as a theoretical framework to guide the discussion. The data were analysed using content analysis. Four main challenges were identified: 1) legality rules influencing the data available, 2) variations in data standardization/coding between countries, 3) relationships and responsibilities between stakeholders, and 4) data not available for secondary use. The facilitators included: 1) having a framework in place to guide the process, 2) having strong relationships between stakeholders, 3) having technical elements in place to support the process, and 4) taking a pragmatic approach to the available data. It is hoped that identifying these challenges will raise awareness of potential issues for undertaking such research and that tackling these and building on the facilitators will establish stronger foundations for the sharing of data within and across disciplines and countries.

Abstract Background Tooth decay has a significant impact on children, their families and wider society. The dental consultation provides an opportunity to prevent tooth decay by engaging in an effective oral health conversation with parents and children. However, there is limited literature which explores how these oral health conversations are delivered, received, and understood. Aim To explore the common facilitators of delivering oral health advice from dental teams, parents' and children's experiences, to identify and inform practical recommendations for clinical practice. Method The current paper used a qualitative supplementary analysis to reanalyse data of existing published studies by applying a different research question. Qualitative focus groups were undertaken following a semi-structured interview guide with 27 dental team members (dentists, dental nurses, practice managers and receptionists), 37 parents and 120 children (aged 7–10 years old) in the northern region of England. Thematic analysis informed the identification of themes and aggregation of findings. Results Three overarching themes were developed: (1) An engaging and personalised dental visit for parents and children; (2) Dental teams, parents and children working collaboratively to improve oral health habits; and (3) Recommending appropriate oral health products. Many parents and children had little recollection of any preventive oral health conversations when visiting the dentist. Practical solutions were identified by different stakeholders to facilitate three-way, personalised, non-judgemental and supportive oral health conversations. Adopting these innovative approaches will help to enable parents and their children to adopt and maintain appropriate oral health behaviours. Conclusion Understanding the context and triangulating the experiences of stakeholders involved in preventive oral health conversations for young children is an essential step in co-designing a complex oral health intervention. This study has provided recommendations for dental practices and wider paediatric health care services. Furthermore, the findings have informed the design of a complex oral health intervention called "Strong Teeth".

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is highly prevalent in hospital inpatient populations, leading to significant mortality and morbidity, reduced quality of life and high short- and long-term health-care costs for the NHS. New diagnostic tests may offer an earlier diagnosis or improved care, but evidence of benefit to patients and of value to the NHS is required before national adoption. Objectives: To evaluate the potential for AKI in vitro diagnostic tests to enhance the NHS care of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and identify an efficient supporting research strategy. Data sources: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception dates until September 2014 (review 1), November 2015 (review 2) and July 2015 (economic model). Details of databases used for each review and coverage dates are listed in the main report. Review methods: The AKI-Diagnostics project included horizon scanning, systematic reviewing, meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity, appraisal of analytical validity, care pathway analysis, model-based lifetime economic evaluation from a UK NHS perspective and value of information (VOI) analysis. Results: The horizon-scanning search identified 152 potential tests and biomarkers. Three tests, Nephrocheck® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), NGAL and cystatin C, were subjected to detailed review. The meta-analysis was limited by variable reporting standards, study quality and heterogeneity, but sensitivity was between 0.54 and 0.92 and specificity was between 0.49 and 0.95 depending on the test. A bespoke critical appraisal framework demonstrated that analytical validity was also poorly reported in many instances. In the economic model the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £11,476 to £19,324 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with a probability of cost-effectiveness between 48% and 54% when tests were compared with current standard care. Limitations: The major limitation in the evidence on tests was the heterogeneity between studies in the definitions of AKI and the timing of testing. Conclusions: Diagnostic tests for AKI in the ICU offer the potential to improve patient care and add value to the NHS, but cost-effectiveness remains highly uncertain. Further research should focus on the mechanisms by which a new test might change current care processes in the ICU and the subsequent cost and QALY implications. The VOI analysis suggested that further observational research to better define the prevalence of AKI developing in the ICU would be worthwhile. A formal randomised controlled trial of biomarker use linked to a standardised AKI care pathway is necessary to provide definitive evidence on whether or not adoption of tests by the NHS would be of value. Study registration: The systematic review within this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013919. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Over the past decade, commissioning of primary care dentistry has seen contract currency evolving from payment for units of dental activity (UDAs) towards blended contracts that include key performance indicators such as access, quality and improved health outcome. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate a blended/incentive-driven model of dental service provision. To (1) explore stakeholder perspectives of the new service delivery model; (2) assess the effectiveness of the new service delivery model in reducing the risk of and amount of dental disease and enhancing oral health-related quality of life (OHQoL) in patients; and (3) assess cost-effectiveness of the new service delivery model. Methods: Using a mixed-methods approach, the study included three dental practices working under the blended/incentive-driven (incentive) contract and three working under the UDAs (traditional) contract. All were based in West Yorkshire. The qualitative study reports on the meaning of key aspects of the model for three stakeholder groups [lay people (patients and individuals without a dentist), commissioners and the primary care dental teams], with framework analysis of focus group and semistructured interview data. A non-randomised study compared clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment under the two contracts. The primary outcome was gingivitis, measured using bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes included OHQoL and cost-effectiveness. Results: Participants in the qualitative study associated the incentive contract with more access, greater use of skill mix and improved health outcomes. In the quantitative analyses, of 550 participants recruited, 291 attended baseline and follow-up. Given missing data and following quality assurance, 188 were included in the bleeding on probing analysis, 187 in the caries assessment and 210 in the economic analysis. The results were mixed. The primary outcome favoured the incentive practices, whereas the assessment of caries favoured the traditional practices. Incentive practices attracted a higher cost for the service commissioner, but were financially attractive for the dental provider at the practice level. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in OHQoL in both groups were statistically significant. Limitations: The results of the quantitative analysis should be treated with caution given small sample numbers, reservations about the validity of pooling, differential dropout results and data quality issues. Conclusions: A large proportion of people in this study who had access to a dentist did not follow up on oral care. These individuals are more likely to be younger males and have poorer oral health. Although access to dental services was increased, this did not appear to facilitate continued use of services. Future work: Further research is required to understand how best to promote and encourage appropriate dental service attendance, especially among those with a high level of need, to avoid increasing health inequalities, and to assess the financial impact of the contract. For dental practitioners, there are challenges around perceptions about preventative dentistry and use of the risk assessments and care pathways. Changes in skill mix pose further challenges. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Offender health is deemed a priority issue by the Department of Health. Peer support is an established feature of prison life in England and Wales; however, more needs to be known about the effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve health in prison settings. Objectives: The study aimed to synthesise the evidence on peer-based interventions in prison settings by carrying out a systematic review and holding an expert symposium. Review questions were (1) what are the effects of peer-based interventions on prisoner health and the determinants of prisoner health?, (2) what are the positive and negative impacts on health services within prison settings of delivering peer-based interventions?, (3) how do the effects of peer-based approaches compare with those of professionally led approaches? and (4) what are the costs and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions in prison settings? Data sources: For the systematic review, 20 electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and EMBASE were searched from 1985. Grey literature and relevant websites were also searched. To supplement the review findings 58 delegates, representing a variety of organisations, attended an expert symposium, which provided contextual information. Review methods: Two reviewers independently selected studies using the following inclusion criteria: population – prisoners resident in prisons and young offender institutions; intervention – peer-based interventions; comparators: review questions 3 and 4 compared peer-led and professionally led approaches; outcomes – prisoner health or determinants of health, organisational/process outcomes or views of prison populations; study design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods evaluations. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed validity using piloted electronic forms and validity assessment criteria based on published checklists. Results from quantitative studies were combined using narrative summary and meta-analysis when appropriate; results from qualitative studies were combined using thematic synthesis. Results: A total of 15,320 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 57 studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study was included in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. A typology of peer-based interventions was developed. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours and that peer support services provide an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients; the strongest evidence came from the Listener scheme. Consistent evidence from many predominantly qualitative studies suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects across all intervention types. There was limited evidence about recruitment of peer deliverers. Recurring themes were the importance of prison managerial and staff support for schemes to operate successfully, and risk management. There was little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. An economic model, developed from the results of the effectiveness review, although based on data of variable quality and a number of assumptions, showed the cost-effectiveness of peer-led over professionally led education in prison for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Limitations: The 58 included studies were, on the whole, of poor methodological quality. Conclusions: There is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health. Peer support services can also provide an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. This was confirmed by expert evidence. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse but a limited HIV-specific economic model, although based on a number of assumptions and evidence of variable quality, showed that peer interventions were cost-effective compared with professionally led interventions. Well-designed intervention studies are needed to provide robust evidence including assessing outcomes for the target population, economic analysis of cost-effectiveness and impacts on prison health services. More research is needed to examine issues of reach, utilisation and acceptability from the perspective of recipients and those who choose not to receive peer support. Study registration: This study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002349. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.