IQuaD dental trial; improving the quality of dentistry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing oral hygiene advice and periodontal instrumentation for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Behavioral Interventions on Periodontitis Patients to Improve Oral Hygiene: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of different psychological models, strategies, and methods to improve plaque control and/or gingival inflammation in patients with periodontal diseases. Methods: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase online databases were explored to identify relevant studies published before October 2022. Articles investigating the effects of different psychological approaches and intervention strategies on periodontitis patients’ oral hygiene (OH) behavioral change were screened. Results: 5460 articles were identified, and 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In total, 2 studies tested audio-visual modalities, and the remaining 19 publications involved six psychological models of health-related behavioral interventions, including Social Cognitive Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Health Action Process Approach, Leventhal’s self-regulatory theory, Motivational Interviewing, and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. A meta-analysis of the results was not carried out due to the high heterogeneity among the interventions. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of the available studies, psychological interventions based on social cognitive models that combine some of the techniques of this model (goal setting, planning, self-monitoring, and feedback) may improve OH in periodontitis patients, having a positive impact on periodontal clinical outcomes. Delivering cognitive behavioral therapy in combination with motivational interviewing may result in an improvement in OH as evaluated by decreasing plaque and bleeding scores.

Selective Caries Removal in Permanent Teeth (SCRiPT) for the treatment of deep carious lesions: a randomised controlled clinical trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Dental caries is one of the most prevalent non-communicable disease globally and can have serious health sequelae impacting negatively on quality of life. In the UK most adults experience dental caries during their lifetime and the 2009 Adult Dental Health Survey reported that 85% of adults have at least one dental restoration. Conservative removal of tooth tissue for both primary and secondary caries reduces the risk of failure due to tooth-restoration, complex fracture as well as remaining tooth surfaces being less vulnerable to further caries. However, despite its prevalence there is no consensus on how much caries to remove prior to placing a restoration to achieve optimal outcomes. Evidence for selective compared to complete or near-complete caries removal suggests there may be benefits for selective removal in sustaining tooth vitality, therefore avoiding abscess formation and pain, so eliminating the need for more complex and costly treatment or eventual tooth loss. However, the evidence is of low scientific quality and mainly gleaned from studies in primary teeth.

METHOD

This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm patient randomised controlled clinical trial including an internal pilot set in primary dental care in Scotland and England. Dental health professionals will recruit 623 participants over 12-years of age with deep carious lesions in their permanent posterior teeth. Participants will have a single tooth randomised to either the selective caries removal or complete caries removal treatment arm. Baseline measures and outcome data (during the 3-year follow-up period) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. A mixed-method process evaluation will complement the clinical and economic outcome evaluation and examine implementation, mechanisms of impact and context. The primary outcome at three years is sustained tooth vitality. The primary economic outcome is net benefit modelled over a lifetime horizon. Clinical secondary outcomes include pulp exposure, progession of caries, restoration failure; as well as patient-centred and economic outcomes.

DISCUSSION

SCRiPT will provide evidence for the most clinically effective and cost-beneficial approach to managing deep carious lesions in permanent posterior teeth in primary care. This will support general dental practitioners, patients and policy makers in decision making. Trial Registration Trial registry: ISRCTN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN76503940. Date of Registration: 30.10.2019. URL of trial registry record: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN76503940?q=ISRCTN76503940%20&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search .

Have you had bleeding from your gums? Self-report to identify giNGival inflammation (The SING diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic model development study)

AIM

To assess the diagnostic performance of self-reported oral health questions and develop a diagnostic model with additional risk factors to predict clinical gingival inflammation in systemically healthy adults in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Gingival inflammation was measured by trained staff and defined as bleeding on probing (present if bleeding sites ≥ 30%). Sensitivity and specificity of self-reported questions were calculated; a diagnostic model to predict gingival inflammation was developed and its performance (calibration and discrimination) assessed.

RESULTS

We included 2853 participants. Self-reported questions about bleeding gums had the best performance: the highest sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.70, 0.75) for a Likert item and the highest specificity 0.89 (95% CI 0.87, 0.90) for a binary question. The final diagnostic model included self-reported bleeding, oral health behaviour, smoking status, previous scale and polish received. Its area under the curve was 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.67).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest assessment of diagnostic performance of self-reported oral health questions and the first diagnostic model developed to diagnose gingival inflammation. A self-reported bleeding question or our model could be used to rule in gingival inflammation since they showed good sensitivity, but are limited in identifying healthy individuals and should be externally validated.

Examining the impact of oral hygiene advice and/or scale and polish on periodontal disease: the IQuaD cluster factorial randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost benefit of different frequencies of scale and polish (S&P) treatments in combination with different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA).

Design Multi-centre, multi-level cluster randomised factorial open trial with blinded outcome evaluation. UK dental practices were cluster randomised to deliver OHA as usual or personalised. In a separate randomisation, patients were allocated to receive S&P 6-monthly, 12-monthly or never.

Setting UK primary dental care.

Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups.

Main outcome measures The percent of sites with bleeding on probing, patient confidence in self-care, incremental net benefits (INB) over three years.

Results Sixty-three practices and 1,877 adult patients were randomised and 1,327 analysed (clinical outcome). There was no statistically significant or clinically important difference in gingival bleeding between the three S&P groups (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference 0.87% sites, 95% CI: 1.6 to 3.3, p = 0.48) or between personalised or usual OHA groups (difference -2.5% sites, -95%CI: -8.3 to 3.3, p = 0.39), or oral hygiene self-efficacy (cognitive impact) between either group (for example, six-monthly versus none: difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063, p = 0.543). The general population place a high value on, and are willing to pay for, S&P services. However, from a dental health perspective, none of the interventions were cost-effective.

Conclusion Results suggest S&P treatments and delivering brief personalised OHA provide no clinical benefit and are therefore an inefficient approach to improving dental health (38% of sites were bleeding whatever intervention was received). However, the general population value both interventions.

Describes the process of successfully delivering a multi-centre, cluster randomised factorial open trial in general dental practice in the NHS, for the most frequently provided dental treatment, scale and polish (S&P), and oral hygiene advice.

Highlights the clinical, economic and patient-centred outcomes from providing S&P at different time intervals alongside personalised or routine oral hygiene advice to over 2,000 participants for three years.

Evidence from IQuaD concludes that there was no difference in gingival bleeding across trial arms at three years; however, the general population are willing to pay for and place a high value on both S&P and personalised oral hygiene advice.

Protocol for a Randomised controlled trial to Evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of prescribing high dose FLuoride toothpaste in preventing and treating dEntal Caries in high-risk older adulTs (reflect trial)

BACKGROUND

Dental caries in the expanding elderly, predominantly-dentate population is an emerging public health concern. Elderly individuals with heavily restored dentitions represent a clinical challenge and significant financial burden for healthcare systems, especially when their physical and cognitive abilities are in decline. Prescription of higher concentration fluoride toothpaste to prevent caries in older populations is expanding in the UK, significantly increasing costs for the National Health Services (NHS) but the effectiveness and cost benefit of this intervention are uncertain. The Reflect trial will evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of General Dental Practitioner (GDP) prescribing of 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste and usual care compared to usual care alone in individuals 50 years and over with high-risk of caries.

METHODS/DESIGN

A pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 50 years and above attending NHS dental practices identified by their dentist as having high risk of dental caries. Participants will be randomised to prescription of 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste (frequency, amount and duration decided by GDP) and usual care only. 1200 participants will be recruited from approximately 60 dental practices in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and followed up for 3 years. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants receiving any dental treatment due to caries. Secondary outcomes will include coronal and root caries increments measured by independent, blinded examiners, patient reported quality of life measures, and economic outcomes; NHS and patient perspective costs, willingness to pay, net benefit (analysed over the trial follow-up period and modelled lifetime horizon). A parallel qualitative study will investigate GDPs' practises of and beliefs about prescribing the toothpaste and patients' beliefs and experiences of the toothpaste and perceived impacts on their oral health-related behaviours.

DISCUSSION

The Reflect trial will provide valuable information to patients, policy makers and clinicians on the costs and benefits of an expensive, but evidence-deficient caries prevention intervention delivered to older adults in general dental practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 2017-002402-13 registered 02/06/2017, first participant recruited 03/05/2018. Ethics Reference No: 17/NE/0329/233335. Funding Body: Health Technology Assessment funding stream of National Institute for Health Research. Funder number: HTA project 16/23/01. Trial Sponsor: Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL. The Trial was prospectively registered.

Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD): a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

BACKGROUND

Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI).

OBJECTIVES

To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI.

DESIGN

Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

SETTING

UK dental practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3.

INTERVENTION

Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs).

RESULTS

A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions.

LIMITATIONS

Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA.

FUTURE WORK

Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Eliciting Preferences in Dentistry with Multiattribute Stated Preference Methods: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Preference experiments are used to understand how patients and stakeholders value aspects of health care. These methods are gaining popularity in dentistry, but quality and breadth of use have not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To describe multiattribute stated preference experiment use in dentistry through illustration and critique of existing studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature search of PubMed, Econlit and Ovid for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, and All EBM Reviews, as well as gray literature.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Multiattribute stated preference experiments eliciting preferences for dental service delivery, treatments, and oral health states from the perspective of patients, the public, and dental professionals. Outcomes of interest were preference weights and marginal rates of substitution. Study selection was independently performed by 2 reviewers.

APPRAISAL

Ten-point checklist published by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research was used for quality assessment.

SYNTHESIS

Descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Searches identified 12 records published between 1999 and 2015, mostly in nondental academic journals. Studies were undertaken in high-income countries in Europe and the United States. The studies aimed to elicit preference for service delivery, treatment, or oral health states from the perspective of the patients, dentists, or the public via discrete choice experiment methods. The quality scores for the studies ranged from 53% to 100%.

LIMITATIONS

A detailed description and critique of stated preference methods are provided, but it was not possible to provide synthesized preference data.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiattribute stated preference experiments are increasingly popular, but understanding the methods and outputs is essential for designing and interpreting preference studies to improve patient care. Patient preferences highlight important considerations for decision making during treatment planning. Valuation of health states and estimation of willingness-to-pay are important for resource planning and allocation and economic evaluation. Preference estimates and relative value of attributes for interventions and service delivery inform development and selection of treatments and services (PROSPERO 21.3.17: CRD42017059859).

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

Understanding patient, professional, and public preferences is fundamental for evidence-based decision making and treatment delivery. Preference elicitation methods can be used to estimate the value given to health states, service delivery, individual treatments, and health outcomes. By describing and appraising the methodology and application of multiattribute stated preference experiments in dentistry, this review provides an essential first step to wider use of well-designed, high-quality preference elicitation methods.

Implementation and trial evidence: a plea for fore-thought

In a world where evidence-based practice is see as the foundation of modern healthcare, this paper asks when and how should we be accounting for the input of patients, the public, dental professionals, commissioners and policy-makers in the evidence generation process?

Patients' preferences in periodontal disease treatment elicited alongside an IQWiG benefit assessment: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) previously tested two preference elicitation methods in pilot projects and regarded them as generally feasible for prioritizing outcome-specific results of benefit assessment. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility of completing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 3 months and to determine the relative importance of attributes of periodontal disease and its treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This preference elicitation was conducted alongside the IQWiG benefit assessment of systematic treatments of periodontal diseases. Attributes were defined based on the benefit assessment, literature review, and patients' and periodontologists' interviews. The DCE survey was completed by patients with a history of periodontal disease. Preferences were elicited for the attributes "tooth loss within next 10 years", "own costs for treatment, follow-up visits, re-treatment", "complaints and symptoms", and "frequency of follow-up visits". Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire including 12 choice tasks. Data were analyzed using a random parameters logit model. The relative attribute importance was calculated based on level ranges.

RESULTS

Within 3 months, survey development, data collection among 267 patients, data analysis, and provision of a study report could be completed. The analysis showed that tooth loss (score 0.73) was the most important attribute in patients' decisions, followed by complaints and symptoms (0.22), frequency of follow-up visits (0.02), and costs (0.03) (relative importance scores summing up to 1).

CONCLUSION

A preference analysis performing a DCE can be generally feasible within 3 months; however, a good research infrastructure and access to patients is required. Outcomes used in benefit assessments might need to be adapted to be used in preference analyses.

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

The split-plot design was useful for evaluating complex, multilevel interventions, but there is need for improvement in its design and report

OBJECTIVES

To describe the sample size calculation, analysis and reporting of split-plot (S-P) randomized controlled trials in health care (trials that use two units of randomization: one at a cluster-level and one at a level lower than the cluster).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We carried out a comprehensive search in the EMBASE database from 1946 to 2016. Health care trials with a S-P design in human subjects were included. Three authors screened and assessed the studies, and the data were extracted on methodology and reporting standards based on CONSORT.

RESULTS

Eighteen S-P studies were included, with authors using nine different designations to describe them. Units of randomization were unclear in nine abstracts. Explicit rationale for choosing the design was not given. Ten studies presented a sample size calculation accounting for clustering; the analyses were coherent with that. Flow of participant diagrams was presented but was incomplete in 14 articles.

CONCLUSION

S-P designs can be useful complex designs but challenging to report. Researchers need to clearly describe the rationale, sample size calculation, and participant flow. We provide a suggested CONSORT style participant flow diagram to aid reporting. There is need for more research regarding sample size calculation for S-P.

Development of an implementation intention-based intervention to change children's and parent-carers' behaviour

Background

Implementation intentions enable individuals to translate good intentions into action. Parents and children can find maintaining oral health difficult, as evidenced by the presence of tooth decay. This is a common condition in children in spite of being preventable through the use of regular tooth brushing, fluoride protection and avoiding sugar intake. Even when parents and children are positive about looking after the teeth, they can face challenges in maintaining consistent habits. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a video animation to teach parents and children how to use implementation intentions to establish new habits to improve oral health, applied in this case, to parents and children with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP).

Methods

Evidence from a qualitative study of parents’ and children’s knowledge, beliefs and behaviour informed the design of an animation forming part of an intervention for children and parents using implementation intentions. The user views generated a set of guiding principles to determine the style and content of a teaching video, whilst an animation designer translated the key messages of implementation intention into images and characters appealing and meaningful to the target audience of children and parents.

Results

A team of researchers, an animation designer and a script writer designed a 2-min video as a teaching tool for children and parents. The team drafted and iteratively refined the content and visuals, with guidance from an advisory group and informal discussions with children in the target age group and their parents. Planning, consulting, designing and production of the animation spanned a total of 20 weeks. The video explains how to formulate ‘if-then’ plans using the voices of a boy and his mother in a conversation, with examples from oral health to illustrate how to enact intentions. It is available via digital media and designed to be delivered by dental care practitioners. The effectiveness of the intervention will be evaluated as part of a feasibility study.

Conclusion

The current study describes the development of an intervention mediated through an animation tutorial that enables children and parents to devise ‘if-then’ plans to improve oral health as a collaborative endeavour between parents and children. The animation uses examples from oral health, but we believe there is scope for exploring application of the intervention to other areas of behaviour.