Oral hygiene programmes for people with intellectual disabilities

Using realist methods for intervention development to fill a methodological gap: A case study showing the development of an oral hygiene intervention for people with intellectual developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

Realist methods offer a novel approach to intervention design. Such novelty is needed for effective oral health promotion interventions with people with intellectual developmental disabilities (IDD) and their carers because existing interventions are poorly described and lack theoretical underpinning. In this study, the steps between inception and final intervention development are presented, with an aim to expand understanding of how realist theorizing can be used to develop interventions, and to demonstrate theory-driven intervention development in the field of oral health promotion.

METHODS

In this intervention development study, the use of realist methods to develop an intervention aiming to improve the oral hygiene of people with IDD is presented. Realist theories (RTs) arising from a mixed synthesis were used to develop the Keep My Teeth intervention. The use of realist theory in intervention development was mapped across seven domains and 18 actions with emphasis on how theory informed key actions.

RESULTS

Realist theories informed many but not all actions in the development process. Where gaps arose, this was augmented with other systems of intervention development, such as the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) systems. The resulting intervention and underlying theory are presented using TiDieR criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

It is demonstrated how realist methods could be integrated with substantive theory when developing an intervention. RTs enhanced the contextualization of the intervention that was developed but were insufficient in their own right to guide the development process from conception to intervention. This was overcome by augmenting with substantive theory, in this case, using the BCW and BCT behaviour change systems, to select and specify the behaviours that needed to change. In essence, the BCTs guided which techniques to select, while the RTs guided how to develop and intervene. Robust intervention development in the field of oral health promotion is also presented in this study.

Interventions for Feeding and Swallowing Disorders in Adults with Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Feeding and swallowing disorders are prevalent in adults with Intellectual Disability (ID) and can potentially lead to discomfort, malnutrition, dehydration, aspiration, and choking. Most common interventions include: diet modification, compensatory strategies, swallowing therapy, and non-oral feeding. Despite their common use, the research evidence for these interventions is lacking. The current study aimed to systematically review the evidence for the safety and the effectiveness of interventions for feeding and swallowing disorders in adults with ID. Seven electronic databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed from online availability to March 2019, with no language restrictions. Eligibility criteria encompassed experimental or non-experimental study design, adults (> 18 years) with ID and feeding and/or swallowing disorders (any etiology and severity) and any intervention for feeding and/or swallowing disorders. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Downs and Black checklist. Four articles met the inclusion criteria. All included studies considered enteral feeding as an intervention strategy and had a retrospective observational design. Overall, included studies reported positive change in nutritional status and a high incidence of adverse events following enteral feeding initiation. Risk of bias was high with variability in methodological quality. The safety and effectiveness of interventions for feeding and swallowing in adults with ID is unclear. This review highlights the lack of evidence-based practice in this area. Directions for further research are provided. Before enteral feeding initiation, risks and benefits should be appropriately balanced on an individual basis, and caregivers should be involved in the decision-making process.

Oral hygiene interventions for people with intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

Periodontal (gum) disease and dental caries (tooth decay) are the most common causes of tooth loss; dental plaque plays a major role in the development of these diseases. Effective oral hygiene involves removing dental plaque, for example, by regular toothbrushing. People with intellectual disabilities (ID) can have poor oral hygiene and oral health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of oral hygiene interventions, specifically the mechanical removal of plaque, for people with intellectual disabilities (ID).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 4 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Register of Studies), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and PsycINFO Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. The Embase search was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project, which makes available clinical trials indexed in Embase through CENTRAL. We handsearched specialist conference abstracts from the International Association of Disability and Oral Health (2006 to 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and some types of non-randomised studies (NRS) (non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies) that evaluated oral hygiene interventions targeted at people with ID or their carers, or both. We used the definition of ID in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10). We defined oral hygiene as the mechanical removal of plaque. We excluded studies that evaluated chemical removal of plaque, or mechanical and chemical removal of plaque combined.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened search records, identified relevant studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE criteria. We contacted study authors for additional information if required. We reported RCTs and NRSs separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs and 15 NRSs involving 1795 adults and children with ID and 354 carers. Interventions evaluated were: special manual toothbrushes, electric toothbrushes, oral hygiene training, scheduled dental visits plus supervised toothbrushing, discussion of clinical photographs showing plaque, varied frequency of toothbrushing, plaque-disclosing agents and individualised care plans. We categorised results as short (six weeks or less), medium (between six weeks and 12 months) and long term (more than 12 months).Most studies were small; all were at overall high or unclear risk of bias. None of the studies reported quality of life or dental caries. We present below the evidence available from RCTs (or NRS if the comparison had no RCTs) for gingival health (inflammation and plaque) and adverse effects, as well as knowledge and behaviour outcomes for the training studies.Very low-certainty evidence suggested a special manual toothbrush (the Superbrush) reduced gingival inflammation (GI), and possibly plaque, more than a conventional toothbrush in the medium term (GI: mean difference (MD) -12.40, 95% CI -24.31 to -0.49; plaque: MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.05; 1 RCT, 18 participants); brushing was carried out by the carers. In the short term, neither toothbrush showed superiority (GI: MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.57; plaque: MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.85; 1 RCT, 25 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence).Moderate- and low-certainty evidence found no difference between electric and manual toothbrushes for reducing GI or plaque, respectively, in the medium term (GI: MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; plaque: standardised mean difference 0.29, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.65; 2 RCTs, 120 participants). Short-term findings were inconsistent (4 RCTs; low- to very low-certainty evidence).Low-certainty evidence suggested training carers in oral hygiene care had no detectable effect on levels of GI or plaque in the medium term (GI: MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.45; plaque: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.13; 2 RCTs, 99 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested oral hygiene knowledge of carers was better in the medium term after training (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 189 participants); this was not found in the short term, and results for changes in behaviour, attitude and self-efficacy were mixed.One RCT (10 participants) found that training people with ID in oral hygiene care reduced plaque but not GI in the short term (GI: MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.34; plaque: MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.02; very low-certainty evidence).One RCT (304 participants) found that scheduled dental recall visits (at 1-, 3- or 6-month intervals) plus supervised daily toothbrushing were more likely than usual care to reduce GI (pocketing but not bleeding) and plaque in the long term (low-certainty evidence).One RCT (29 participants) found that motivating people with ID about oral hygiene by discussing photographs of their teeth with plaque highlighted by a plaque-disclosing agent, did not reduce plaque in the medium term (very low-certainty evidence).One RCT (80 participants) found daily toothbrushing by dental students was more effective for reducing plaque in people with ID than once- or twice-weekly toothbrushing in the short term (low-certainty evidence).A benefit to gingival health was found by one NRS that evaluated toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent and one that evaluated individualised oral care plans (very low-certainty evidence).Most studies did not report adverse effects; of those that did, only one study considered them as a formal outcome. Some studies reported participant difficulties using the electric or special manual toothbrushes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although some oral hygiene interventions for people with ID show benefits, the clinical importance of these benefits is unclear. The evidence is mainly low or very low certainty. Moderate-certainty evidence was available for only one finding: electric and manual toothbrushes were similarly effective for reducing gingival inflammation in people with ID in the medium term. Larger, higher-quality RCTs are recommended to endorse or refute the findings of this review. In the meantime, oral hygiene care and advice should be based on professional expertise and the needs and preferences of the individual with ID and their carers.