A scoping review of intervention components of school-based oral health-related behavioural interventions using the Theoretical Domains Framework

The aim of this study was to review the intervention components of school-based oral health-related behavioural interventions using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We identified relevant papers from the review of Cooper et al., and these papers came from both the original inclusion and exclusion article lists. We also modified and updated their search strategies (2013 - April 2019). The 53 included papers reported on 79 interventions (experimental groups = 57 interventions, control groups = 22 interventions). Most of the papers used three to nine domains (average = 5.6) in their experimental interventions, and the most commonly used domains were 'knowledge,' 'skills,' 'social influences,' and 'environmental context and resources.' Considering the complexity of intervention components in one programme, there is no one specific domain or domain set that can determine the success of behavioural interventions. The design of future programmes should be guided by a complex intervention methodology. However, the best combination set might not exist, and the choice of domains should depend on local context or resources. This study can be used as a resource for identifying previous papers, which have used the same domains.

Effectiveness of the school-based oral health promotion programmes from preschool to high school: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Schools offer an opportunity for oral health promotion in children and adolescents. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the influence of school-based oral health promotion programmes on oral health knowledge (OHK), behaviours (OHB), attitude (OHA), status (OHS), and quality of life (OHRQoL) of children and adolescents.

METHODS

A systematic search on the PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. The last search was done on April 24th, 2020. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Of the 997 articles identified, 31 articles were included in this review. Seven studies targeted students in preschools, seventeen in elementary schools, and seven in high schools. Most of these studies revealed positive outcomes. Some studies showed that the school-based oral health promotion programmes showed better OHK, OHB, OHS, and OHRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Positive results were obtained through oral health promotion programmes in schools, especially those involving children, teachers, and parents.

WITHDRAWN: Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health

BACKGROUND

Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health.

OBJECTIVES

Primary • To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Secondary • To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health

BACKGROUND

Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health.

OBJECTIVES

Primary • To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Secondary • To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Primary school-based behavioural interventions for preventing caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries is one of the most common global childhood diseases and is, for the most part, entirely preventable. Good oral health is dependent on the establishment of the key behaviours of toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and controlling sugar snacking. Primary schools provide a potential setting in which these behavioural interventions can support children to develop independent and habitual healthy behaviours.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effects of school-based interventions aimed at changing behaviour related to toothbrushing habits and the frequency of consumption of cariogenic food and drink in children (4 to 12 year olds) for caries prevention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 18 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 18 October 2012), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 18 October 2012), CINAHL via EBSCO (1981 to 18 October 2012) and PsycINFO via OVID (1950 to 18 October 2012). Ongoing trials were searched for using Current Controlled Trials (to 18 October 2012) and ClinicalTrials.gov (to 18 October 2012). Conference proceedings were searched for using ZETOC (1993 to 18 October 2012) and Web of Science (1990 to 18 October 2012). We searched for thesis abstracts using the Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (1950 to 18 October 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. Non-English language papers were included and translated in full by native speakers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions in primary schools (children aged 4 to 12 years at baseline) were selected. Included studies had to include behavioural interventions addressing both toothbrushing and consumption of cariogenic foods or drinks and have a primary school as a focus for delivery of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data related to methods, participants, intervention design including behaviour change techniques (BCTs) utilised, outcome measures and risk of bias. Relevant statistical information was assessed by a statistician subsequently. All included studies contact authors were emailed for copies of intervention materials. Additionally, three attempts were made to contact study authors to clarify missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies involving 2302 children. One study was at unclear risk of bias and three were at high risk of bias. Included studies reported heterogeneity in both the intervention design and outcome measures used; this made statistical comparison difficult. Additionally this review is limited by poor reporting of intervention procedure and design. Several BCTs were identified in the trials: these included information around the consequences of twice daily brushing and controlling sugar snacking; information on consequences of adverse behaviour and instruction and demonstration regarding skill development of relevant oral health behaviours.Only one included study reported the primary outcome of development of caries. This small study at unclear risk of bias showed a prevented fraction of 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 1.18) in the intervention group. However, as this is based on a single study, this finding should be interpreted with caution.Although no meta-analysis was performed with respect to plaque outcomes (due to differences in plaque reporting between studies), the three studies which reported plaque outcomes all found a statistically significant reduction in plaque in the intervention groups with respect to plaque outcomes. Two of these trials involved an 'active' home component where parents were given tasks relating to the school oral health programme (games and homework) to complete with their children. Secondary outcome measures from one study reported that the intervention had a positive impact upon children's oral health knowledge.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of primary school-based behavioural interventions for reducing caries. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions on plaque outcomes and on children's oral health knowledge acquisition. None of the included interventions were reported as being based on or derived from behavioural theory. There is a need for further high quality research to utilise theory in the design and evaluation of interventions for changing oral health related behaviours in children and their parents.