Search

Objectives: The study aimed to assess whether psychological distress mediates the association between financial strain and oral health and dental attendance in the Dutch adult population.Methods: The study followed a cross-sectional design based on 2812 participants from the 2014 wave of the Dutch population-based GLOBE study. Financial strain was considered the exposure, while psychological distress measured with the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) was the mediator. The outcomes included self-reported number of teeth, self-rated oral health, and self-reported dental attendance. Generalized regression analyses were used for the mediation analysis adjusted for several covariables. Results: Greater financial strain was significantly associated with poorer self-rated oral health (total effect: 0.09, 95%CI: 0.05; 0.14) and restorative or no dental attendance (i.e. participants never visiting a dentist or only visiting a dentist for regular treatments or when they have complaints with their mouth, teeth, or prosthesis) (total effect: 0.05, 95%CI: 0.02; 0.09). Greater financial strain was not significantly associated with self-reported number of teeth (total effect: −0.14, 95%CI: −0.91; 0.64). Psychological distress significantly mediated the association of financial strain with self-rated oral health (average causal mediation effect [ACME]: 0.02, 95%CI: 0.01; 0.03) and self-reported dental attendance (ACME: 0.01, 95%CI: 0.00; 0.02), respectively. However, it did not significantly mediate the association of financial strain with self-reported number of teeth (ACME: −0.11, 95%CI: −0.25; 0.02). The estimated proportion of the total effect of financial strain on self-rated oral health and self-reported dental attendance that could be explained by psychological distress was respectively 24% (95%CI: 14%; 48%) and 19% (95%CI: 6%; 62%). Conclusions: Psychological distress partly explains the associ

Objective: Undocumented migrants in Europe face multiple barriers in access to oral health care. This study aimed to explore the accessibility of a voluntary dental network providing dental treatments to undocumented migrants in the Netherlands, from the perspectives of patients, dentists and staff members of nongovernmental organizations involved. Methods: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews (n = 21) with undocumented migrants (n = 12), dentists (n = 7) and staff members of nongovernmental organizations (n = 2) during the implementation of a voluntary dental network. Interviews were analysed using a framework analysis method. Results: As a temporary answer to problems in access to oral health for undocumented migrants, the voluntary dental network targeted initial barriers to dental care. Main challenges within the network were conflicting expectations and perceived treatment outcomes by patients, dentist and NGO staff members, limited financial resources, logistic and communication barriers and an increasing administrative burden. Furthermore, feelings of compassion for and trust of the patient affected the ethics of the professional relationship and influenced treatment decisions of dentists. Conclusion: Through the implementation of a voluntary dental network, treatments could be provided to undocumented migrants as a temporary solution. However, the voluntary nature of dental care in the network resulted in a fragmented provision of oral health care among undocumented migrants. To reduce inequalities in oral health on the long term, systemic barriers in access to oral health care need to be addressed.

Objectives: A proof-of-concept study has shown that the Added Value for Oral Care (ADVOCATE) Field Studies approach (academic detailing with feedback data) is considered a feasible, useful, and acceptable way to motivate general dental practitioners (GDPs) to reflect on and, if required, change their oral health-care delivery. The aims of this proof-of-principle study were to test whether such results were reproducible and to reach consensus among stakeholders on recommendations for wider implementation. Methods: Eleven groups of GDPs were recruited in 6 countries (Denmark, England Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and The Netherlands). Each group had 3 academic detailing meetings, being stimulated by feedback data. Focus group interviews were held to evaluate the reproducibility of the Field Studies approach. A World Café session explored suggestions for the wider implementation of the approach. Results: Replicable results on feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the Field Studies approach were seen; 7 out of 9 themes identified in the proof-of-concept study were validated. Directed content analyses identified that adjustments to procedures to collect and present feedback data were desirable. Overall, the approach can stimulate GDPs to reflect on and change aspects of their oral health-care delivery. Conclusions: The Field Studies approach, after some adjustments to data collection procedures, is ready for further testing in larger studies.

Objective In the last 30 years, innovations in oral healthcare (OHC), such as advanced restorative techniques, shifts towards preventive and evidence-based care and changes in patients’ expectations, have increased the complexity of clinical decision-making in OHC. Little is known about the perspectives of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on the value of providing preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. This study aimed to explore the range of perspectives present amongst GDPs on OHC. Method Q-methodology was used to explore perspectives among 78 GDPs working in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to sort 50 statements representing three central domains in OHC: i.) restorative versus preventative OHC, ii.) disease-centred versus patient-centred OHC and iii.) expertise-based versus evidence-based OHC. Opinion statements about delivering OHC were formulated on the basis of published literature and input from OHC professionals. By-person factor analysis was used to reveal clusters of communality in statement rankings, which were interpreted and formed perspectives on OHC. Results Four perspectives, explaining 47% of variance, on OHC were identified amongst GDPs: ‘the patient-focused dentist who values prevention’, ‘the outcome-oriented dentist who values learning from colleagues’, ‘the team player with ultimate care responsibility’ and ‘the dentist who considers oral health the responsibility of the patient.’ Conclusion Q-methodology can be effectively used to describe the different perspectives that GDPs have on the challenges of preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. GDPs should not be seen as a homogenous group; rather they have different views and approaches to the care they provide. This has implications for health systems; awareness of the heterogeneity of practitioners’ perspectives can potentially be used to develop bespoke quality of care improvement strategies that constructively engage with each of these different groups.

Background: This study aimed to assess the contribution of material, behavioural, cultural and psychosocial factors in the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities (education and income) in oral health of Dutch adults.Methods: Cross-sectional data from participants (25-75 years of age) of the fifth wave of the GLOBE cohort were used (n = 2812). Questionnaires were used to obtain data on material factors (e.g. financial difficulties), behavioural factors (e.g. smoking), cultural factors (e.g. cultural activities) and psychosocial factors (e.g. psychological distress). Oral health outcomes were self-reported number of teeth and self-rated oral health (SROH). Mediation analysis, using multivariable negative binomial regression and logistic regression, was performed.Results: Education level and income showed a graded positive relationship with both oral health outcomes. Adding material, behavioural, cultural and psychosocial factors substantially reduced the rate ratio for the number of teeth of the lowest education group from 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.83) to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87-0.97) and of the lowest income group from 0.80 (95% CI: 0.73-0.88) to 1.04 (95% CI: 0.96-1.14). Inclusion of all factors also substantially reduced the odds ratio for poor SROH of the lowest education group from 1.61 (95% CI: 1.28-2.03) to 1.12 (95% CI: 0.85-1.48) and of the lowest income groups from 3.18 (95% CI: 2.13-4.74) to 1.48 (95% CI: 0.90-2.45).Conclusion: In general, behavioural factors contributed most to the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities in adult oral health, followed by material factors. The contribution of cultural and psychosocial factors was relatively moderate.