Search

Background: The 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., Methods: Interviews 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)., Results: 106 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., Conclusions: Our 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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Leggett et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

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., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To explore, through face to face interviews with a selection of General Dental Practitioners (GDPs), their views and experiences of having used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) within primary care research studies for recording caries., Methods: This qualitative study involved one on one interviews with eight GDP's who had previously used ICDAS on patients in their dental practices as part of a research study. The participants were selected from among those who had taken part in two clinical studies in the UK using convenient, but purposive sampling. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the data analysis was conducted by thematic analysis., Results: GDP's indicated their beliefs that ICDAS had an important role in caries prevention but reported four main barriers while using the full (6 caries stages) ICDAS coding system in their practices: lack of simplicity of coding, financial implications and time consumption (in both training and use of ICDAS) and inadequate undergraduate training. An overarching theme identified from the GDPS was the willingness to offer potential solutions to their barriers which might improve the utilisation of the system in primary care., Conclusion: The GDPs experienced common obstacles in using ICDAS in the primary care setting, many of which have relatively straight-forward solutions which they put forward themselves such as: incentivisation, undergraduate-level training in ICDAS for both dentists and nurses and computerized data entry. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed on how to facilitate the utilisation of the system in dental practice. It is also recommended to explore the influences of wider agencies on influencing primary dental care professionals' caries management, including appropriate recording of diagnosis and risk assessment., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Aim: To compare the provision and costs at the point of delivery of dental treatments in a sample of European Union (EU) Member States., Materials and Methods: A questionnaire with open-ended questions was sent to oral health policy-makers in Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Scotland and Spain. They were asked to answer questions on the probable costs and provision of treatment in their country for a vignette presented as a pre-defined case., Results: All respondents returned answers to all questions. Wide variations were reported in: who would deliver care, cost of items of care and total cost. For example, in France, only a dentist would provide the treatment. In Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Scotland, it was likely that the treatment would be provided by a combination of dentist, dental hygienist and dental nurse. Fees ranged from €72 in England (if treated within the NHS) to €603 in Denmark. In Italy, Spain and for most patients in Romania, all treatment costs were paid by the patient. In the other nine countries, some subsidy from public funds was available. In terms of percentage of per capita Gross National Income, the cost to the patient ranged from 0.12% in France to 1.57% in Spain., Conclusions: It was apparent that there are wide variations between EU Member States in the manner in which oral healthcare is delivered, its cost and the extent to which the cost of treatment is subsidised from state funds or through private insurance., (© 2018 The Authors. International Dental Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Dental Federation.)

Smoking has been identified as the second greatest risk factor for global death and disability and has impacts on the oral cavity from aesthetic changes to fatal diseases such as oral cancer. The paper presents a secondary analysis of the National Adult Dental Health Survey (2009). The analysis used descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and logistic regression models to report the self-reported oral health status and dental attendance of smokers and non-smokers in England. Of the 9,657 participants, 21% reported they were currently smoking. When compared with smokers; non-smokers were more likely to report 'good oral health' (75% versus 57% respectively, p<0.05). Smokers were twice as likely to attend the dentist symptomatically (OR = 2.27, CI = 2.02-2.55) compared with non-smoker regardless the deprivation status. Smokers were more likely to attend symptomatically in the most deprived quintiles (OR = 1.99, CI = 1.57-2.52) and perceive they had poorer oral health (OR = 1.77, CI = 1.42-2.20). The present research is consistent with earlier sub-national research and should be considered when planning early diagnosis and management strategies for smoking-related conditions, considering the potential impact dental teams might have on smoking rates.