Oral health promotion activities in the workplace: a scoping review.

There is limited literature and no reviews on oral health promotion activities in the workplace to guide planning and practice. This review summarizes evidence about oral health promotion activities in the workplace (nature and extent), its impact and the factors that facilitate or act as barriers to implementation. Using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, scientific articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals up to April 2021, from six databases (Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE and Emcare) were screened and selected. The full texts of 95 articles were then considered; 21 articles met the inclusion criteria of using oral health status or oral health predisposing factors as primary outcome after an intervention in the workplace. Almost all included articles took a quantitative approach (n = 18), two used a qualitative design and another used a mixed-method approach. The most common activities were personalized or group oral health education interventions and oral health screenings conducted by a dental professional. Two studies reported the cost-benefit of workplace oral health promotion (WOHP). The literature indicated that WOHP interventions can be successful in achieving improvements in oral health, measured using a range of clinical (plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, periodontal inflammation) and self-rated oral health indicators. Based on the limited literature available, WOHP may have benefits for employee oral health and employers, and the support of managers and organizations potentially improves the success of programmes. The workplace would appear to be an ideal setting to promote oral health. However, there is limited information to guide oral health promotion planning and implementation, and policy.

Conceptualising a theoretical framework for planning and evaluating workplace oral health promotion programs.

ISSUED ADDRESSED: Workplaces have considerable potential for enhancing personal resources and providing a supportive working environment for staff health, including oral health and well-being. To date, assessments of workplace oral health promotion (WOHP) activities have observed benefits ranging from self-reported oral health to clinical parameters. However, previous WOHP actions were not based on a theoretical framework and did not consider the working environment as part of the planning and evaluation process. METHODS: This article used evidence-based health promotion theoretical frameworks, and associated facilitators and barriers, in constructing an integrated and theoretically robust approach to planning and evaluating oral health promotion activities in the workplace. RESULTS: The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model for planning and evaluation, the reach effectiveness adoption implementation maintenance, and the Salutogenic Model of Health were chosen to complement each other in the planning and evaluation process, based on their different features and the applicability of those features to the workplace setting. Because of the limited literature in this area, the current article also used evidence from oral health promotion in other settings (including schools and the community) and general health promotion in the workplace to construct a theoretical framework for planning and evaluating WOHP activities. CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical framework developed could assist in planning or improving existing workplace health promotion programs that focus on or incorporate oral health elements. SO WHAT?: Future research on applying and adapting the proposed framework is required.

Workplace oral health promotion activities among community-aged care workers: A qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: The workplace is an ideal-and priority-setting for health promotion activities. Developing and implementing workplace health promotion interventions, including oral health promotion activities, can help create health-supporting workplace environments. OBJECTIVE: To pilot workplace oral health promotion activities among staff working in the aged care sector, report their impact and explore participants' views on the factors that contribute to participation and effectiveness. METHODS: This study comprised three phases: (i) the development and face validation of the resources, (ii) a 3-h educational session and (iii) five interview sessions with participants 4-6 weeks following the education session. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Eleven community-aged care workforce were invited to five feedback sessions. Ten participants were female and ranged in age from 18 to 64. All participants gave favourable comments about the content and delivery of the training session and accompanying resources. The participants felt that the benefits of WOHP include improved staff knowledge, awareness and oral care routine, the ability to share (and put into practice) the gained knowledge and information with their dependants, a lower risk of having poor oral health that adversely affects their well-being and work tasks, and potentially beneficial impacts on the organization's staff roster. Their attendance in the WOHP was facilitated by being paid to attend and scheduling the sessions during work time. Future WOHP suggestions include the possibility of a one-stop dental check-up at the workplace or staff dental care discounts from local dental practitioners and combining oral health with other health promotion activities. CONCLUSIONS: Planning and implementing WOHP was deemed acceptable and feasible in this study context and successfully achieved short-term impacts among community-aged care workers. Appropriate times and locations, organizational arrangements and a variety of delivery options contributed to successful programme planning and implementation.