Long-term effectiveness of the midwifery initiated oral health-dental service program on maternal oral health knowledge, preventative dental behaviours and the oral health status of children in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service was developed to train midwives to promote maternal oral health, and a large trial showed it substantially improved the oral health, knowledge and behaviours of pregnant women. AIM: Evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the program (post-trial) on maternal oral health knowledge, dental behaviours, and early childhood caries in offspring. METHODS: A prospective cohort study involving 204 women and children 3-4 years (followed after trial) was conducted in Sydney, Australia from 2017 to 2019. RESULTS: The program did not have a significant impact on the study measures. Mothers who received the program did have comparatively better knowledge around preventative behaviours to reduce early childhood caries and significantly more mothers were engaging in a key behaviour of using a cup to feed their child. Overall maternal oral health knowledge and level of education did have a protective effect on the dental decay of children. Higher knowledge and levels of education reduced the odds of having a dmft of one or more by over half (OR 0.473), and almost 80% (OR 0.212) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the MIOH-DS program was not effective, there is still value in exploring other complementary interventions to improve maternal oral health, especially for disadvantaged families. Future research should focus on co-designing an antenatal and postnatal oral health intervention and exploring its long-term impact on the oral health of children.

Process evaluation of the midwifery initiated oral health-dental service program: Perceptions of dental professionals.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: All pregnant women should have a comprehensive oral health evaluation. Unfortunately, many pregnant women seldom seek dental care and some dentists are hesitant to treat during pregnancy. To address these issues, the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health Dental Service (MIOH-DS) program was developed in Australia. The aim of this study was to undertake a process evaluation and explore the perceptions of dental professionals involved in the program to determine the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of the program if it were to be upscaled. METHODS: A qualitative approach using content analysis was conducted on data from two focus groups involving 12 dental professionals. RESULTS: All participants were supportive of the MIOH-DS program. They thought pregnant women were receptive to their care, and reported markedly improved oral health. The provision of free dental care and the involvement of midwives were cited as major factors that improved the uptake of the program. Some of the challenges encountered were the prevailing misconceptions about the safety of dental treatment and pregnancy-related impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Dental professionals found the MIOH-DS to be acceptable, feasible and effective in improving oral health of pregnant women and their uptake of dental services. However, some challenges need to be addressed as the MIOH-DS program is upscaled into a cost-effective model. SO WHAT?: Dental professionals are important stakeholders in the MIOH-DS model. The process evaluation of the successful dental intervention is necessary to understand how and why such interventions work, and is an important step in scaling up to a population-wide intervention.

Effectiveness of preventive dental programs offered to mothers by non-dental professionals to control early childhood dental caries: a review.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood caries is a common chronic childhood disease and maternal oral health is a risk factor. Improving the oral health behaviours of pregnant women/young mothers can positively influence the oral health of children and reduce their caries risk. Such preventative strategies have been undertaken by non-dental professionals producing mixed results encompassing various interventions across the perinatal period. However, no comprehensive review of these studies has been undertaken. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of maternal oral health programs undertaken during the antenatal and/or postnatal period by non-dental health professionals to reduce early childhood caries. METHODS: A systematic search of five databases was undertaken using key search terms. Studies were included if they (a) involved quantitative study designs with a control; (b) were published in English; (c) reported on interventions delivered by non-dental professionals (d) delivered the intervention to expectant mothers or mothers with young infants up to 24 months; (e) measured outcomes when the child was under 5 years; (f) measured changes in oral health outcomes of children clinically and oral health behaviours of mothers or children. No restrictions were placed on the study quality and setting. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and involved interventions delivered by diverse non-dental professionals across the antenatal (n = 1), postnatal (n = 6) and perinatal period (n = 2). Most studies were of low methodological quality (n = 6). The interventions focussed on oral health education (n = 8), dental referrals (n = 3) and oral health assessments (n = 1). Interventions conducted in either the postnatal or antenatal periods showed meaningful improvements in children's clinical and mother's behavioural oral health outcomes. The outcomes appear to be sustained when a suite of interventions were used along with referral reminders. There were mixed results from interventions across the perinatal period. CONCLUSIONS: Non-dental professionals can promote maternal oral health by providing oral health education, risk assessment and referrals. Combining these interventions could provide a sustained improvement in oral health outcomes for children although current evidence is weak. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether the antenatal and/or postnatal period is best suited to deliver these interventions.

Measuring oral health during pregnancy: sensitivity and specificity of a maternal oral screening (MOS) tool.

BACKGROUND: Midwives can play a key role in promoting the oral health of pregnant women and assessing their oral health status. A maternal oral assessment tool (MOS) was developed and pilot tested by the study investigators to assist midwives in this role and the results were promising. The aim of this study was to undertake further sensitivity and specificity assessment of the MOS tool using two-comparison approaches- the longer oral health screening tool known as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and an oral assessment by trained study dentists. METHODS: Pregnant women were recruited for this study as part of a larger randomised controlled trial of a Midwifery Initiated Oral Health (MIOH) program. Pregnant women completed the MOS and OHIP-14 as part of their initial assessment undertaken by 38 trained and accredited midwives. A dental assessment was conducted for all women in the intervention group using three trained study dentists with high inter rater reliability. RESULTS: Two hundred and eleven pregnant women participated in the validation of the MOS tool. Results from both approaches found the MOS tool to have high sensitivity, correctly identifying 88-94 % of women at risk of poor dental health, and low specificity (14-21 %). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the MOS tool can be successfully implemented by midwives during a woman's first antenatal visit and can identify up to 94 % of women at risk of poor oral health and needing a dental referral. The tool has the potential to be transferable to other antenatal care providers and could be incorporated into hospital obstetric database systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001271897 , 6th Dec 2012, retrospectively registered.

What do antenatal care providers understand and do about oral health care during pregnancy: a cross-sectional survey in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence to support the lack of awareness among pregnant women about health consequences and long term risks associated with poor oral hygiene during pregnancy. A recognised and important point of influence is their interaction with health professionals, particularly when receiving Antenatal Care. However, there is limited evidence about the perceptions of ANC providers in Australia toward the provision of perinatal oral healthcare. This study was undertaken to explore the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Antenatal Care (ANC) providers in New South Wales (NSW), Australia providing perinatal oral healthcare and to identify barriers to and predictors of their practices in this area. METHODS: A cross sectional survey was undertaken of ANC providers (general practitioners, obstetricians/gynaecologists and midwives) practising in NSW, Australia. Participants were recruited through their professional organisations via email, postal mail, and networking at conferences. The survey addressed the domains of knowledge, attitude, barriers and practices towards oral healthcare, along with demographics. Data was entered into SPSS software and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: A total of 393 surveys (17.6% response rate) were completed comprising 124 general practitioners, 74 obstetricians/gynaecologists and 195 midwives. The results showed limited knowledge among ANC providers regarding the impact of poor maternal oral health on pregnancy/infant outcomes. Most (99%) participants agreed that maternal oral health was important yet few were discussing the importance of oral health or advising women to visit a dentist (16.4-21.5%). Further, less than a third felt they had the skills to provide oral health advice during pregnancy. ANC providers who were more knowledgeable about maternal oral health, had training and information in this area and greater experience, were more likely to engage in practices addressing the oral health of pregnant women. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that ANC providers in NSW are not focussing on oral health with pregnant women. ANC providers seem willing to discuss oral health if they have appropriate education/training and information in this area. Further research at a national level is required to confirm whether these findings are similar in all Australian states.

Economic evaluation of the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service programme in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service (MIOH-DS) designed to improve oral health of pregnant Australian women. Previous efficacy and process evaluations of MIOH-DS showed positive outcomes and improvements across various measures. DESIGN AND SETTING: The evaluation used a cost-utility model based on the initial study design of the MIOH-DS trial in Sydney, Australia from the perspective of public healthcare provider for a duration of 3 months to 4 years. PARTICIPANTS: Data were sourced from pregnant women (n=638), midwives (n=17) and dentists (n=3) involved in the MIOH trial and long-term follow-up. COST MEASURES: Data included in analysis were the cost of the time required by midwives and dentists to deliver the intervention and the cost of dental treatment provided. Costs were measured using data on utilisation and unit price of intervention components and obtained from a micro-costing approach. OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was measured as the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from health-benefit components of the intervention. Three cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken using different comparators, thresholds and time scenarios. RESULTS: Compared with current practice, midwives only intervention meets the Australian threshold (A$50 000) of being cost-effective. The midwives and accessible/affordable dentists joint intervention was only 'cost-effective' in 6 months or beyond scenarios. When the midwife only intervention is the comparator, the midwife/dentist programme was 'cost-effective' in all scenarios except at 3 months scenario. CONCLUSIONS: The midwives' only intervention providing oral health education, assessment and referral to existing dental services was cost-effective, and represents a low cost intervention. Midwives' and dentists' combined interventions were cost-effective when the benefits were considered over longer periods. The findings highlight short and long term economic benefits of the programme and support the need for policymakers to consider adding an oral health component into antenatal care Australia wide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001271897; Post-results.

Implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of an oral health module for the bachelor of midwifery program at an Australian university.

OBJECTIVE: Although guidelines recommend antenatal care providers such as midwives promote oral health during pregnancy, oral health training is not routinely provided in undergraduate midwifery curricula. The aim of this study was to implement an oral health module into an Australian undergraduate midwifery program, and evaluate its effectiveness in improving the oral health knowledge and confidence of midwifery students. DESIGN: Pre-test post-test study (2015-2017). SETTING: An undergraduate midwifery program within an Australian university. PARTICIPANTS: All first-year undergraduate midwifery students enrolled in two core units at the above university (N = 56). METHODS: Oral health modules were implemented into each of the two core units within the first year of the Bachelor of Midwifery course. Changes in knowledge and confidence were measured using a standardised questionnaire, administered at baseline, immediately following module completion, and at 2 and 3 years following module completion. RESULTS: 44 students participated in the baseline survey (79% response rate), of which 41 completed the first post-module questionnaire, 21 completed the second post-questionnaire, and 24 completed the third post-questionnaire. Knowledge scores significantly increased from baseline (mean 13.12) to follow-up (mean 17.78, p < 0.001), with increases being retained through to the 3-year mark (mean 18.29, p < 0.001). Confidence scores also showed a sustained increase following the module, particularly regarding introducing oral health in the first antenatal appointment (62.1% increase, p < 0.001) and referring pregnant women to a dentist (48.2% increase, p < 0.001). However, the 48.2% increase (p < 0.001) in confidence in conducting a visual mouth check on a pregnant woman following the module was not sustained at subsequent time points, reducing to a 31.5% increase (p = 0.118) by the third year post-module. CONCLUSIONS: The module is effective in improving and sustaining the knowledge and confidence of midwifery students to promote maternal oral health. Ongoing updates may be required to keep confidence high regarding visual mouth checks.

Process evaluation of the midwifery initiated oral health-dental service program: Perceptions of midwives in Greater Western Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Despite links between poor maternal oral health, adverse pregnancy outcomes and early childhood decay there is limited emphasis on maternal oral health in Australia. To address this, the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health Dental Service (MIOH-DS) program was developed in collaboration with the Australian College of Midwives. AIMS: To undertake a process evaluation and explore perceptions of midwives involved in the MIOH-DS program to determine its practicability, acceptability and feasibility if it were to be up-scaled and implemented into clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative content analysis was undertaken on data from three focus groups with 21 midwives. FINDINGS: Midwives generally found the MIOH-DS to be acceptable and feasible with potential for widespread scalability. The trust women had in midwives was an important factor in gaining women's attention about oral health in pregnancy. The program assisted in increasing midwives' knowledge and awareness, though some felt it was outside their scope of practice. The oral health assessment tool was acceptable to midwives but some concerns were expressed about undertaking a visual oral inspection. Most midwives stated they were now confident with referring individuals to a dentist. Significant barriers to widespread implementation included the cost of dental care and the continued lack of awareness and misconceptions pregnant women had towards oral health. CONCLUSION: Midwives found the MIOH-DS to be acceptable and feasible which are two important barriers to potential implementation at scale. Misconceptions over the importance of oral health by women and cost of accessing dental services still need resolving.

Evaluation of a midwifery initiated oral health-dental service program to improve oral health and birth outcomes for pregnant women: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral health care during pregnancy is important for the health of the mother and child. However, pregnant women have limited knowledge about maternal oral health and seldom seek dental care. Further, due to limited training antenatal care providers like midwives rarely discuss oral health with pregnant women. The Midwifery-Initiated Oral Health Dental Service program was developed to address current gaps in oral promotional interventions during pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a Midwifery-Initiated Oral Health Dental Service program in improving uptake of dental services, oral health knowledge, quality of oral health, oral health status and birth outcomes of pregnant women. DESIGN: Multi-centre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Three large metropolitan public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women attending their first antenatal appointment who were at least 18 years old and had a single low risk pregnancy between 12 and 20 weeks gestation. METHODS: 638 pregnant women were allocated to three groups using block randomisation (n = 211) control group, intervention group 1 (n = 215), intervention group 2 (n = 212) and followed up till birth. Study investigators and data collectors were blinded to group allocation. Intervention group 1 received a midwifery intervention from trained midwives involving oral health education, screening and referrals to existing dental pathways. Intervention group 2 received the midwifery intervention and a dental intervention involving assessment/treatment from cost free local dental services. The control group received oral health information at recruitment. Primary outcome was uptake of dental services. Secondary outcomes included oral health knowledge, quality of oral health, oral health status and birth outcomes. RESULTS: Substantial improvements in the use of dental services (20.2% Control Group; 28.3% Intervention group 1; 87.2% Intervention group 2; Odds Ratio Intervention group 2 vs Control Group = 29.72, 95% CI 15.02-58.53, p < 0.001), women's oral health knowledge (p = 0.03); quality of oral health (p < 0.001) and oral health outcomes (sulcus bleeding, dental plaque, clinical attachment loss, decayed/filled teeth- p < 0.001) were found in Intervention group 2. No difference in the rate of preterm or low-birth weight was found. CONCLUSIONS: The Midwifery-Initiated Oral Health Dental Service program (Intervention group 2) improved the uptake of dental services and oral health of pregnant women and is recommended during antenatal care. A cause and effect relationship between this intervention and improved birth outcomes was not supported.

The evaluation of an oral health education program for midwives in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care providers are now recommended to promote oral health during pregnancy and provide dental referrals. However, midwives in Australia are not trained to undertake this role. To address this shortcoming, an online evidence based midwifery initiated oral health (MIOH) education program was systematically developed as a professional development activity. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in improving the oral health knowledge of midwives and assess their confidence to promote maternal oral health post training. METHODS: The program was evaluated using a pre-post test design involving 50 midwives purposively recruited from two states in Australia. The pre-post questionnaire contained 24 knowledge items previously pilot tested as well as items exploring confidence in promoting oral health and perceptions of the program. FINDINGS: The results showed a significant improvement in the oral health knowledge (↑21.5%, p<0.001) of midwives after completion of the program. The greatest improvement in knowledge occurred in key areas vital in promoting maternal oral health namely the high prevalence of dental problems and its impact on birth and infant outcomes. The majority also reported being confident in introducing oral health into antenatal care (82%) and referring women to dental services (77.6%) after undertaking the education program. CONCLUSION: The MIOH education program is a useful resource to equip midwives with the necessary knowledge and skills to promote oral health during pregnancy. The program is accessible and acceptable to midwives and can potentially be transferable to other antenatal care providers.