Search

BackgroundTooth 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.AimTo 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.MethodThe 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionUnderstanding 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".

Objectives Parental supervised toothbrushing (PSB) is a collection of behaviours recommended by national guidance to improve oral health. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to PSB. Materials and methods Studies investigating parental involvement in home-based toothbrushing in children under 8 years old and the impact on tooth decay were included. Electronic databases, references and unpublished literature databases were searched. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to code barriers/facilitators to PSB. Results Of the 10,176 articles retrieved, 68 articles were included. Barriers and facilitators were found across all 12 TDF domains. Barriers included an inadequate toothbrushing environment and resources, knowledge of what PSB entails and child behaviour management. Facilitators were increased oral health knowledge, the adaption of the social environment to facilitate PSB and positive attitudes towards oral health. When only high-quality articles were synthesized, knowledge was not a common barrier/facilitator. Conclusions There are a comprehensive range of barriers/facilitators to PSB acting across all domains and at multiple levels of influence. This review identifies the most popular domains, thus informing the focus for supporting resources to supplement oral health conversations. Clinical relevance PSB is a complex behaviour. Practitioners need to understand and be able to explore the wide range of potential barriers and have practical suggestions to enable PSB. This review provides pragmatic examples of different barriers and facilitators and emphasises the importance of listening to parents and exploring their story to identify the barriers and solutions that are relevant to each family.

Introduction: Dental caries, gum disease, and tooth loss are all preventable conditions. However, many dental care systems remain treatment oriented rather than prevention oriented. This promotes the treatment of oral diseases over preventive treatments and advice. Exploring barriers to prevention and understanding the requirements of a paradigm shift are the first steps toward delivering quality prevention-focused health care. Objectives: To qualitatively explore perceived barriers and facilitators to oral disease prevention from a multistakeholder perspective across 6 European countries. Methods: A total of 58 interviews and 13 focus groups were undertaken involving 149 participants from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Hungary. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in each country in its native language between March 2016 and September 2017. Participants were patients ( n = 50), dental team members ( n = 39), dental policy makers( n = 33), and dental insurers ( n = 27). The audio was transcribed, translated, and analyzed via deductive thematic analysis. Results: Five broad themes emerged that were both barriers and facilitators: dental regulation, who provides prevention, knowledge and motivation, trust, and person-level factors. Each theme was touched on in all countries; however, cross-country differences were evident surrounding the magnitude of each theme. Conclusion: Despite the different strengths and weaknesses among the systems, those who deliver, organize, and utilize each system experience similar barriers to prevention. The findings suggest that across all 6 countries, prevention in oral health care is hindered by a complex interplay of factors, with no particular dental health system offering overall greater user satisfaction. Underlying the themes were sentiments of blame, whereby each group appeared to shift responsibility for prevention to other groups. To bring about change, greater teamwork is needed in the commissioning of prevention to engender its increased value by all stakeholders within the dental system. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results from this study provide an initial first step for those interested in exploring and working toward the paradigm shift to preventive focused dentistry. We also hope that these findings will encourage more research exploring the complex relationship among dental stakeholders, with a view to overcoming the barriers. In particular, these findings may be of use to dental public health researchers, dentists, and policy makers concerned with the prevention of oral diseases.

Background Data from countries that have implemented a complete phase out of dental amalgam following the Minamata agreement suggest increased costs and time related to the placement of alternatives with consumers absorbing the additional costs. This aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a complete phase out of dental amalgam on oral health inequalities in particular for countries dependent on state run oral health services. Methods A mixed methods component design quantitative and qualitative study in the United Kingdom. The quantitative study involved acquisition and analysis of datasets from NHS Scotland to compare trends in placement of dental amalgam and a survey of GDPs in Yorkshire, UK. The qualitative study involved analysis of the free text of the survey and a supplementary secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews and focus groups with GDPs (private and NHS), dental school teaching leads and NHS dental commissioners to understand the impact of amalgam phase down on oral health inequalities. Results Time-trends for amalgam placement showed that there was a significant (p Survey respondents suggest that direct impacts of a phase down were related to increased costs and time to place alternative restorations and reduced quality of care. This in turn would lead to increased tooth extractions, reduced access to care and privatisation of dental services with the greatest impact on deprived populations. Conclusion Amalgam is still a widely placed material in state run oral health services. The complete phase down of dental amalgam poses a threat to such services and threatens to widen oral health inequalities. Our data suggest that a complete phase out is not currently feasible unless appropriate measures are in place to ensure cheaper, long-lasting and easy to use alternatives are available and can be readily adopted by primary care oral health providers.

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.

Background Oral health worldwide needs improving: untreated dental caries is the most common health condition affecting people globally. Mobile applications (apps) have potential to provide preventative oral health interventions. This study aimed to investigate the quality of available oral health promotion apps, assessing information provided and the barriers to oral health addressed using psychological frameworks. Methods A content assessment of oral health promotion apps targeted at adults in the UK iTunes store was conducted. The quality of 22 apps was assessed against 3 objective indices derived from the Delivering Better Oral Health toolkit, Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Index scores were calculated and descriptive analyses were completed. Results On average, four Delivering Better Oral Health messages, seven Theoretical Domains Framework components and eight Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy components were addressed per app. The most common components were: ‘take at least two minutes to brush’ for the Delivering Better Oral Health index, ‘goals’ and ‘intentions’ for the Theoretical Domains Framework index and ‘goal setting (behaviour)’ for the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy index. Conclusion The quality of information available in oral health apps requires improvement with the majority addressing only a few barriers to oral health. Currently, there is no recognized scale for evaluating oral health apps: this study provides a suggested method for future app evaluation. There is opportunity for a new app to be created based on health behaviour change theory which includes all the Delivering Better Oral Health messages.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe stakeholder perspectives of a new service delivery model in primary care dentistry incorporating incentives for access, quality and health outcomes.DesignData were collected through observations, interviews and focus groups.SettingThis was conducted under six UK primary dental care practices, three working under the incentive-driven contract and three working under the traditional activity-based contract.ParticipantsObservations were made of 30 dental appointments. Eighteen lay people, 15 dental team staff and a member of a commissioning team took part in the interviews and focus groups.ResultsUsing a qualitative framework analysis informed by Andersen’s model of access, we found oral health assessments influenced patients’ perceptions of need, which led to changes in preventive behaviour. Dentists responded to the contract, with greater emphasis on prevention, use of the disease risk ratings in treatment planning, adherence to the pathways and the utilisation of skill-mix. Participants identified increases in the capacity of practices to deliver more care as a result. These changes were seen to improve evaluated and perceived health and patient satisfaction. These outcomes fed back to shape people’s predispositions to visit the dentist.ConclusionThe incentive-driven contract was perceived to increase access to dental care, determine dentists’ and patients’ perceptions of need, their behaviours, health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Dentists face challenges in refocusing care, perceptions of preventive dentistry, deployment of skill mix and use of the risk assessments and care pathways. Dentists may need support in these areas and to recognise the differences between caring for individual patients and the patient-base of a practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new blended dental contract incentivising improved oral health compared with a traditional dental contract based on units of dental activity (UDAs).DESIGN: Non-randomised controlled study.SETTING: Six UK primary care dental practices, three working under a new blended dental contract; three matched practices under a traditional contract.PARTICIPANTS: 550 new adult patients.INTERVENTIONS: A new blended/incentive-driven primary care dentistry contract and service delivery model versus the traditional contract based on UDAs.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was as follows: percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes were as follows: extracted and filled teeth (%), caries (International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS)), oral health-related quality of life (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14)). Incremental cost-effective ratios used OHIP-14 and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L.RESULTS: At 24 months, 291/550 (53%) patients returned for final assessment; those lost to follow-up attended 6.46 appointments on average (SD 4.80). The primary outcome favoured patients in the blended contract group. Extractions and fillings were more frequent in this group. Blended contracts were financially attractive for the dental provider but carried a higher cost for the service commissioner. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in oral health-related quality of life in both groups were statistically significant.CONCLUSIONS: This is the first UK study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended contract in primary care dentistry. Although the primary outcome favoured the blended contract, the results are limited because 47% patients did not attend at 24 months. This is consistent with 39% of adults not being regular attenders and 27% only visiting their dentist when they have a problem. Promotion of appropriate attendance, especially among those with high need, necessitates being factored into recruitment strategies of future studies.