Search

Background: Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group's systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care., Methods: This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life., Discussion: INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice., Trial Registration: ISRCTN95933794 (Date assigned 20/08/2008).

Background: Dental caries is the most common chronic disease of adult and childhood, a largely preventable yet widespread, costly public health problem. This study identified patient-, organization-, and system-level factors influencing routine delivery of recommended care for prevention and management of caries in primary dental care., Methods: A convergent mixed-methods design assessed six guidance-recommended behaviours to prevent and manage caries (recording risk, risk-based recall intervals, applying fluoride varnish, placing preventive fissure sealants, demonstrating oral health maintenance, taking dental x-rays). A diagnostic questionnaire assessing current practice, beliefs, and practice characteristics was sent to a random sample of 651 dentists in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland. Eight in-depth case studies comprising observation of routine dental visits and dental team member interviews were conducted. Patient feedback was collected from adult patients with recent checkups at case study practices. Key informant interviews were conducted with decision makers in policy, funding, education, and regulation. The Theoretical Domains Framework within the Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify and describe patient-, organization-, and system-level barriers and facilitators to care. Findings were merged into a matrix describing theoretical domains salient to each behaviour. The matrix and Behaviour Change Wheel were used to prioritize behaviours for change and plan relevant intervention strategies., Results: Theoretical domains associated with best practice were identified from the questionnaire (N-196), case studies (N = 8 practices, 29 interviews), and patient feedback (N = 19). Using the study matrix, key stakeholders identified priority behaviours (use of preventive fissure sealants among 6-12-year-olds) and strategies (audit and feedback, patient informational campaign) to improve guidance implementation. Proposed strategies were assessed as appropriate for immediate implementation and suitable for development with remaining behaviours., Conclusions: Specific, theoretically based, testable interventions to improve caries prevention and management were coproduced by patient-, practice-, and policy-level stakeholders. Findings emphasize duality of behavioural determinants as barriers and facilitators, patient influence on preventive care delivery, and benefits of integrating multi-level interests when planning interventions in a dynamic, resource-constrained environment. Interventions identified in this study are actively being used to support ongoing implementation initiatives including guidance, professional development, and oral health promotion.

Systematic reviews and patient safety initiatives recommend that oral hygiene should be part of routine patient care. However, evidence suggests it is often neglected in hospitals and care homes. Research recommends encouraging beliefs that support oral hygiene, and teaching nurses appropriate skills, as necessary prerequisites to implementing best practice in hospital wards. This article describes a pilot study of an educational workshop on oral hygiene. Results from the pilot study suggest that this workshop is a feasible intervention for a service-wide trial. The literature suggests that other interventions are required to complement this approach if nurses are to make oral hygiene a priority in daily patient care.

This study used multiple theoretical approaches simultaneously to predict an objectively measured clinical behaviour. The six theoretical approaches were: The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), Common Sense Self-Regulation Model (CS-SRM), Operant Learning Theory (OLT), Action Planning (AP) and the Precaution Adoption Process (PAP), with knowledge as an additional predictor. Data on variables from these models were collected by postal survey. Data on the outcome behaviour, the evidence-based practice of placing fissure sealants, was collected from clinical records. Participants were 133 dentists (64% male) in Scotland. Variables found to predict the behaviour were: intention, attitude, perceived behavioural control, risk perception, outcome expectancies, self efficacy, habit, anticipated consequences, experienced consequences and action planning. The TPB, SCT, AP, OLT and PAP significantly predicted behaviour but the CS-SRM did not. A combined (Stepwise) regression model included only intention and action planning. Post hoc analyses showed action planning mediated effect of intention on behaviour. Taking a theory-based approach creates a replicable methodology for identifying factors predictive of clinical behaviour and for the design and choice of interventions to modify practice as new evidence emerges, increasing current options for improving health outcomes through influencing the implementation of best practice.

Many reviews support fluoride varnish (FV) as a caries-inhibitory agent. Evidence from 6 Cochrane systematic reviews involving 200 trials and more than 80,000 participants further confirms the effectiveness of FV, applied professionally 2-4 times a year, for preventing dental caries in both primary and permanent teeth. The relative benefit of FV application seems to occur irrespective of baseline caries risk, baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, use of fluoride toothpaste and application features such as prior prophylaxis, concentration of fluoride or frequency of application. While the efficacy of FV is acknowledged in clinical practice guidelines globally, the implementation of this recommendation may still be an issue. Factors that may facilitate FV application in the USA include Medicaid eligibility, relationships with dentists/community centers and strong cooperation and communication between physicians and support staff. Barriers include insufficient time to integrate oral health services into well-child visits, difficulty in applying FV (lack of skills/training) and resistance among colleagues and staff. Research in the UK/Scotland also suggests encouraging clinicians in their motivation to perform this treatment and addressing professional and parental concerns relating to possible negative consequences may be influential. Further research targeting cost-effectiveness and how FV in routine care may fit in with political agendas relating to, for example, inequalities in health care provision and access will also play a key part in stakeholder decisions to put resources into this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Despite recent improvements in the oral health of Scotland's population, the persistence of childhood dental caries underscores a need to reduce the disease burden experienced by children living in Scotland. Application of fluoride varnish ( FV) to children's teeth provides an evidence-based approach to achieving this goal. Despite policy, health service targets and professional recommendations supporting application, not all children receive FV in line with guidance. The objective of this study was to use the theoretical domains framework ( TDF) to further an understanding of what may influence fluoride varnish application ( FVA) in General Dental Practice in Scotland. Methods A postal questionnaire assessing current behaviour (frequency of FVA) and theoretical domains ( TDs) was sent to all General Dental Practitioners ( GDPs) in Scotland. Correlations and linear regression models were used to examine the association between FVA and the TDs. Results One thousand and ninety (53.6%) eligible GDPs responded. Respondents reported applying FV more frequently to increased risk and younger children (aged 2-5 years). Higher scores in eight TDs (Knowledge, Social/professional role and identity, Beliefs about consequences, Motivation and goals, Environmental context and resources, Social influences, Emotion and Behavioural regulation) were associated with greater frequency of FVA. Four beliefs in particular appear to be driving GDPs' decision to apply FV (recognizing that FVA is a guideline recommended behaviour (Knowledge), that FVA is perceived as an important part of the GDPs' professional role (Professional role/identity), that FV is something parents want for their children (Social influences) and that FV is something GDPs really wanted to do (Emotion). Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of the TDF as a tool to understand GDPs application of FV and suggest that a multifaceted intervention, targeting dental professionals and families, and more specifically those domains and items associated with FVA may have the greatest likelihood of influencing the evidence-based behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]