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.)

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.)

Diabetes and periodontal disease are non-communicable chronic diseases that have a bi-directional relationship. The European Federation of Periodontology and International Diabetes Federation recommend patients with diabetes should be screened for periodontal disease and referred to a dental professional where appropriate. This study investigated the awareness among Paediatric Diabetes Care Teams across England and Wales of diabetes as a risk factor for periodontal disease. The study enquired to the practices, training, and confidence of health care professionals in relation to periodontal disease. A semi-structured online questionnaire was sent to all health care professionals working within Paediatric Diabetes Care Teams across England and Wales. Findings showed that 76.2% of participants were aware that periodontitis is a possible complication of diabetes. Only 5.2% screened for periodontal issues, while 27% of respondents stated that oral advice is not typically given to patients at their clinics and 92.3% said that there is no access to a periodontal service within their clinics. There were 76.4% participants who stated that patients are rarely or never referred to an external dental service for their periodontal health. Only 4.8% of respondents said they have received training for recognizing patients who require dental care for their periodontal health, while 23.2% feel confident identifying children who require referral and 85.4% of participants feel they would benefit from further training in periodontal health. In conclusion, patients are not routinely being informed of the risk of periodontitis or being screened or referred for it. Further training would be perceived as beneficial., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective Attendance at accident and emergency departments (A&E) for non-traumatic dental conditions (NTDC) is increasing in high-income countries. Not all NTDC visits to A&E are inappropriate; however, those that are take up capacity with conditions which are adding to the pressure regarding cost and healthcare utilisation for A&E departments. The scale of this problem is yet to be understood in the United Kingdom (UK). The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify peer-reviewed research publications reporting non-traumatic dental presentations at A&E departments in the UK.Data sources A structured search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science databases from their earliest date to May 2018. Hand-searching of identified articles that met the inclusion criteria was also reviewed.Data selection Publications were included if they were primary research on A&E users in the UK with NTDC as the primary reason for the A&E visit.Data extraction Data were extracted on the study, patient and visit characteristics.Data synthesis Studies were assessed for methodological quality and the analysis took the form of a narrative review.Conclusion There is limited evidence, of variable quality, to inform on the extent of inappropriate presentations of patients with non-urgent NTDC to A&E departments in the UK. The evidence supports the hypothesis that dental patients are inappropriately seeking care for NTDC at A&E departments and this may be a driver of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Further research should focus on the reasons for this occurrence.

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.)

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.)

Objectives: To review the literature reporting factors that are associated with the delivery of lifestyle support in general dental practice., Methods: A systematic review of the quantitative observational studies describing activities to promote the general health of adults in primary care general dental practice. Behavior change included tobacco cessation, alcohol reduction, diet, weight management, and physical activity. Tooth brushing and oral hygiene behaviors were excluded as the focus of this review was on the common risk factors that affect general health as well as oral health., Results: Six cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies only reported activities to support tobacco cessation. As well as tobacco cessation one study also reported activities related to alcohol usage, physical activity, and Body Mass Index. Perceptions of time availability consistently correlated with activities and beliefs about tobacco cessation, alongside the smoking status of the dental professional. Dentists who perceive having more available time were more likely to discuss smoking with patients, prescribe smoking cessation treatments and direct patients toward (signpost to) lifestyle support services. Dental professionals who smoke were less likely to give smoking cessation advice and counselling than nonsmokers. Finally, the data showed that professional support may be relevant. Professionals who work in solo practices or those who felt a lack of support from the wider professional team (peer support) were more likely to report barriers to delivering lifestyle support., Conclusion: Organizational changes in dental practices to encourage more team working and professional time for lifestyle support may influence delivery. Dental professionals who are smokers may require training to develop their beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions., (© 2016 American Association of Public Health Dentistry.)

Objectives: To explore the fear/anxiety inducing triggers associated with dental treatment, and what dentally anxious adults would like from their dental encounter., Methods: Two focus-groups and three interviews with fourteen dentally-anxious people were conducted in this qualitative study. All discussions were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content was categorised by common characteristics to identify underlying themes using thematic analysis., Results: Four themes were identified to bring general meaning within the content: 1. Preparedness, 2. Teamwork, 3. Reinforced trust, 4. Tailored treatment plan., Conclusions: Preparatory information may need to be tailored and comprehensive, yet dissociative and reassuring. Dentally-anxious people might want a sense of control and shared-decision making. They may not want dentists to understate the treatment procedures and risks to make them feel better temporarily., Clinical Significance: Dental anxiety affects between 10 and 60% of the population. Participants in this study suggested different ways the dental team could help their anxiety. Therefore, it is key for whole dental team to find out what could be done to help dentally anxious patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

In 2008 there were 11682 cases of oral cancer in the United Kingdom; this is 16.41/100000 population, and 3.7% of all cancers. Ethnic coding of these data is poor, and so databases were combined to report rates for the incidence of oral cancer in South Asians compared with those among other ethnic groups in West Yorkshire, 2001-2006. A total of 2157 patients with oral cancer were identified in West Yorkshire, 138 of whom were South Asian (6.4%). We analysed them by ethnicity, sex, area in which they lived, and site of cancer. Oral cancer was significantly more common among South Asian women than those from other ethnic groups in England and West Yorkshire, and in England alone it was significantly more common in men of other ethnic groups than those from South Asia. Patients from South Asia were at higher risk of being diagnosed with oral cancer than those of other ethnic groups within West Yorkshire, when data were adjusted for age at diagnosis and sex. In England and in West Yorkshire there was a significantly higher rate of oral cancer among Southern Asian women than among those of other ethnic groups, and men in other ethnic groups had a higher incidence than those from South Asia (England only). The excess of oral cancers gives further weight to the association between smokeless tobacco, smoking, alcohol, and dietary intake by ethnic group. This information is particularly pertinent in areas such as West Yorkshire where there are large groups of Asian people., (Crown Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate smokeless tobacco cessation in communities of South Asian origin., Design: Multi-centre prospective cohort study., Setting: Three tobacco cessation services offering specialist smokeless tobacco cessation outreach clinic support to South Asians (Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani) resident in England., Participants: A total of 239 South Asian participants seeking to stop smokeless tobacco use between November 2010 and December 2011., Measurements: Socio-demographics, tobacco use and dependence, self-reported abstinence at 4 weeks and satisfaction measures., Findings: Participants' mean age was 45 [standard deviation (SD) = 13] years, were predominantly female (76%), of Bangladeshi origin (74%), either home carers (53%) or not working (29%). Sixty-three per cent were recruited from community locations, 21% through a clinical contact and 16% through friends and family. Mean daily number of smokeless tobacco intakes was 10 (SD = 7) and the mean dependence score was 4.5 (SD = 1.9). Sixty-three per cent of participants achieved continuous abstinence 4 weeks after quitting. Using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus not using it [OR = 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.25, 9.62] and below median (≤ 8) daily smokeless tobacco intakes (OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.07, 3.40) predicted successful abstinence., Conclusion: South Asian smokeless tobacco users resident in England accessing services to help them stop appear to have short-term success rates comparable with smokers attending stop-smoking services, with higher success rates being reported by those using nicotine replacement therapy., (© 2012 The Authors, Addiction © 2012 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Objective: To determine whether or not and to what extent health promotion and smoking cessation activities varied between dental practices relative to their National Health Service (NHS)/private treatment mix., Methods: A piloted questionnaire was posted to all dental practitioners within West Yorkshire, with two follow-up mailings., Results: The response rate was 50% (386/769) of dental practitioners within West Yorkshire. Respondents were dichotomised at the median according to the proportion of NHS/private patients seen (>89% NHS, described as 'NHS-orientated practices' [NHSOPs] and <90% NHS, referred to as 'more privately-orientated practices' [POPs]). Practice profiles: Compared with POPs, NHSOPs' respondents had a significantly higher proportion of adult patients exempt from NHS charges (34% vs 57%), together with a higher proportion of children. Health promotion activities: there was no significant difference between the two groups of practitioners regarding the proportion claiming to give smoking cessation advice (42% vs 37%), although a higher proportion of those from POPs offered guidance on diet and nutrition (67% vs 54%; P<0.05). However, a significantly higher proportion of POP respondents reported (a) recording smoking status in the clinical notes, (b) giving out smoking-related leaflets, and (c) referring to an NHS 'Stop Smoking Service'. NHSOP respondents were more likely to cite 'lack of time', 'no incentive' and 'lack of expertise' as potential barriers to providing health promotion advice. General: 7% of POP respondents thought that the new NHS contract arrangements would influence their smoking cessation activities versus 19% of NHSOP residents., Conclusions: Considerable variation between NHSOPs and POPs was found when comparing aspects of their health promotion/smoking cessation activities. The findings identified here suggest that the current situation, with regard to the NHS, will tend to increase health inequalities.