Search

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.)

Objectives: To develop a patient's attitude questionnaire regarding prevention in oral health for use internationally., Methods: Using a mixed methods approach, a questionnaire was developed and refined as part of ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) study, involving partners in six countries: Netherlands, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, and the UK. A literature review explored the history of oral healthcare delivery systems to develop a template for each of the six ADVOCATE countries. A systematic review identified the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral healthcare and underpinned a topic guide and established the patient questionnaire domains. Focus groups in each ADVOCATE country developed the first version of the questionnaire. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in each ADVOCATE country tested the questionnaire and led to further refinement. The questionnaire was produced in five languages. Content validity and reproducibility used principal component analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) refined the questionnaire., Results: The literature review aided an understanding of each country's oral healthcare system, and the findings from the 25 studies identified in the systematic review found the main barriers/facilitators to preventive oral healthcare were cost, knowledge (preventive treatments and advice), and a patient awareness and adherence to preventive advice/treatments. Interviews and focus groups with 148 participants in the ADVOCATE study identified receiving the appropriate level of care/feeling valued, cost, level of motivation/priority, not feeling informed, knowledge, and skill mix as the main barriers/facilitators. Fifty-three PPIE members refined the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was tested with 160 participants. Non-essential or highly correlated variables were then removed, leaving 38 items, covering 6 domains (cost, advice received, advice wanted, message delivery, motivation, knowledge, and responsibility) within the questionnaire. A second pilot test-run was undertaken with 185 participants. The test-re-test reliability demonstrated strong consistency of responses between the two time points (kappa range 0.3-0.7, most p < .0011), which culminated with a final version of the Patient Attitudes to Prevention in Oral Health Questionnaire (PAPOH) questionnaire., Conclusions: This mixed-methods approach enabled the development of a multi-language attitudinal questionnaire for use with patients (PAPOH) to compare attitudes to oral disease prevention internationally., (© 2022 The Authors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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).)

Background: Many people residing in nursing or residential care homes (also called long-term care facilities) live with physical or cognitive difficulties. Staff working in these environments often help residents (particularly those with more advanced dementia) with their personal care needs, including maintaining mouth care and health. Poor oral health is associated with many difficulties, including increased risk of respiratory problems, pain and discomfort. Yet, concerns have been raised that staff may not have the knowledge and skills to effectively support residents with oral care and health. There is therefore an important gap between what is known about the importance of maintaining oral health (scientific evidence) and daily practice in long-term care environments., Objectives: To work with care home staff: (1) to create a learning culture to address how to promote mouth care for residents, particularly when a resident resists support with this aspect of care; and (2) to effect mouth care practice changes (if required) using participatory and inclusive research cycles., Methods and Results: We conducted a participatory research project to address this important area of care. Four participatory research 'cycles' were conducted. Cycle one explored existing literature to develop accessible guidance on strategies that staff could use to support residents to maintain and improve oral care, particularly when a resident may resist such care. Cycle two built on this review to determine knowledge levels within the care team. This highlighted deficiencies in staff knowledge, skills and competence for providing mouth care and their need for training to address this. Cycle three identified evidence-based strategies to develop staff understanding and knowledge. Cycle four brought together experts from nursing, dentistry, behaviour change, systematic reviews and care homes research to develop a grant application to progress this work further., Conclusion: This paper provides an example of the processes undertaken in a participatory research project, bringing together science and practice to improve an essential area of care., Implications for Practice: Using participatory research approaches in this setting can allow the effective translation of uncertainties in care and practice into questions that can be addressed by research, leading to meaningful outcomes for those living and working in care homes., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To explore the potential barriers and facilitators to health visiting (HV) teams delivering oral health promotion during the 9-12-month old child mandated visit in Ealing, England., Background: HV schemes and their counterparts worldwide share similar priorities to discuss oral health at 6-12 months of age. The HV programme in England stipulates at 9-12 months old, diet and dental health should be discussed. HVs believe dental decay is important however oral health knowledge is varied. Further, little is understood about what drives HVs to deliver oral health advice. An appropriate theoretical model to explore these factors is the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)., Methods: An opportunistic sample of HV team members was drawn from three hubs to allow for maximum variation. First, participants completed a questionnaire to establish baseline knowledge. Secondly, participants were invited to take part in focus groups (FGs) with vignettes. Thirdly, face-to-face interviews were conducted. FGs were subject to thematic analysis and the interviews to framework analysis., Results: Thirty-six participants provided written informed consent and completed baseline questionnaires. Three FGs were conducted with an average of seven participants (n=21) followed by 13 interviews. Perceived facilitators: good levels of knowledge and skills, sense of professional role, emotions, belief in capability, organisational structure and resources. Perceived barriers: gaps in knowledge, conflicting advice from other professionals, conflicting issues for parents/ carers, use of interpreters., Conclusions: These findings can be harnessed to support oral health promotion delivered by HV teams., (Copyright© 2020 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

Objective: A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators for people experiencing homelessness achieving good oral health., Participants: Adults using two homeless centres in Leeds., Methods: Focus group discussions were convened with homeless people using support services. Both an inductive and deductive approach to data analysis was taken. Themes were identified and then a framework applied to analysis using Nvivo software., Results: Three focus group discussions with 16 participants were conducted with people experiencing homelessness. The barriers identified were insufficient information on local dental services, negative attitudes of oral health professionals, low priority of dental care, anxiety and cost of dental treatments. Facilitators included single dental appointments, accessible dental locations and being treated with respect., Conclusions: Despite the barriers that prevent people experiencing homelessness from maintaining and improving their oral health, the participants were aware that they needed oral healthcare and requested that dental services were made available to them and were accessible in line with their socioeconomic status and needs., (Copyright© 2019 Dennis Barber Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine knowledge, attitude, and practical behavior of health visitors regarding children's oral health in the United Kingdom (UK)., Methods: A web-based self-administered survey with 18 closed and 2 open ended questions was distributed to a convenience sample of approximately 9,000 health visitors who were currently employed in the United Kingdom and a member of the Institute of Health Visiting., Results: A total of 1,088 health visitors completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 12%. One-third of the health visitors reported that they had not received oral health training previously. Almost all agreed that oral health advice/promotion should be included in their routine health visiting contacts. Previous oral health training/education was associated with an increase in oral health knowledge; confidence in entering a discussion with parents/caregivers and willingness to be involved in dental referral process., Conclusions: The results of our study support the need for health visitors to receive oral health training in oral health promotion including oral health risk assessment, guidance on evidence based up-to-date prevention measures, increasing the dental attendance prevalence at early stages and awareness of including specific oral health guidelines/fact sheets into their regular practice., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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.

Aim: To report the oral health status and dental attendance of smokers and non-smokers., Methods: A postal survey enquiring about smoking status, stop smoking advice, dental attendance and perceptions of oral health was conducted in Yorkshire and the Humber, U.K., in 2008. To address potential biases data were weighted to account for variations in gender, age and deprivation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and binary logistic regression., Results: A response rate of 43.1% was achieved (n=10,864). Across all deprivation quintiles, smokers (17.5% of respondents) were more likely than non-smokers to report fair, poor or very poor oral health (p<0.001). Smokers in the least deprived areas were more likely than non-smokers to attend the dentist symptomatically (p<0.001). Advice to quit was most frequently gained from GP services followed by NHS Stop Smoking Services and dental teams., Conclusions: Smokers were more likely than non-smokers to have a poor self-rated oral health status and attend the dentist symptomatically, irrespective of deprivation.