A scoping review of dental practitioners' perspectives on perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral health care in general dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Oral health has an important role in the general health and well-being of individuals. Dental teams are ideally placed to support patients in preventing ill-health. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the adoption, promotion and facilitation of preventive advice and treatment is key to improving oral health services. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is a useful psychological framework to help identify individual, interpersonal and environmental issues which could be impacting clinicians' ability to provide preventive advice and care. The aim of this review was to identify the perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral health care from the perspectives of the oral healthcare team within the general dental practice. METHODS: A search strategy was developed, piloted, and run in: Medline via Ovid, PsycInfo, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and followed PRISMA guidelines. Identified records were screened independently by two researchers. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and analysed using narrative data synthesis. RESULTS: 5610 papers were identified, and 19 included in this review. Thirteen papers focussed on dentists. Of the 106 items mapped onto the TDF, 48 were facilitators. The domains most frequently represented were, environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, social professional role and identity, skills, beliefs about capabilities and knowledge. Six studies focussed on dental hygienists. There were 47 items mapped onto the TDF, 18 were facilitators. The domains most frequently represented were environmental context and resources, social influences, beliefs about consequences and knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified that the delivery of preventive activities did not focus solely on the patient and dental professional interaction as many previous studies have highlighted. The review found that multiple factors influence whether prevention is delivered to patients. The largest barrier and facilitator for the dental professionals identified in this review was the environmental context and resources. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that aim to promote preventive oral health care in primary care settings to understand whether they address the barriers identified in this review.

Whose Responsibility Is It Anyway? Exploring Barriers to Prevention of Oral Diseases across Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Dental caries, gum disease, and tooth loss are all preventable conditions. However, many dental care systems remain treatment oriented rather than prevention oriented. This promotes the treatment of oral diseases over preventive treatments and advice. Exploring barriers to prevention and understanding the requirements of a paradigm shift are the first steps toward delivering quality prevention-focused health care. OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively explore perceived barriers and facilitators to oral disease prevention from a multistakeholder perspective across 6 European countries. METHODS: A total of 58 interviews and 13 focus groups were undertaken involving 149 participants from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Hungary. Interviews and focus groups were conducted in each country in its native language between March 2016 and September 2017. Participants were patients (n = 50), dental team members (n = 39), dental policy makers(n = 33), and dental insurers (n = 27). The audio was transcribed, translated, and analyzed via deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five broad themes emerged that were both barriers and facilitators: dental regulation, who provides prevention, knowledge and motivation, trust, and person-level factors. Each theme was touched on in all countries; however, cross-country differences were evident surrounding the magnitude of each theme. CONCLUSION: Despite the different strengths and weaknesses among the systems, those who deliver, organize, and utilize each system experience similar barriers to prevention. The findings suggest that across all 6 countries, prevention in oral health care is hindered by a complex interplay of factors, with no particular dental health system offering overall greater user satisfaction. Underlying the themes were sentiments of blame, whereby each group appeared to shift responsibility for prevention to other groups. To bring about change, greater teamwork is needed in the commissioning of prevention to engender its increased value by all stakeholders within the dental system. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The results from this study provide an initial first step for those interested in exploring and working toward the paradigm shift to preventive focused dentistry. We also hope that these findings will encourage more research exploring the complex relationship among dental stakeholders, with a view to overcoming the barriers. In particular, these findings may be of use to dental public health researchers, dentists, and policy makers concerned with the prevention of oral diseases.

Child Caries Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Dental Practice.

This multicenter 3-arm, parallel-group, patient-randomized controlled trial compared clinical effectiveness of 3 treatment strategies over 3 y for managing dental caries in primary teeth in UK primary dental care. Participants aged 3 to 7 y with at least 1 primary molar with dentinal carious lesion were randomized across 3 arms (1:1:1 via centrally administered system with variable-length random permuted blocks): C+P, conventional carious lesion management (complete carious tooth tissue removal and restoration placement) with prevention; B+P, biological management (sealing in carious tooth tissue restoratively) with prevention; and PA, prevention alone (diet, plaque removal, fluorides, and fissure sealants). Parents, children, and dentists were not blind to allocated arm. Co-primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection and 2) the number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection during follow-up (minimum, 23 mo). In sum, 1,144 participants were randomized (C+P, n = 386; B+P, n = 381; PA, n = 377) by 72 general dental practitioners, of whom 1,058 (C+P, n = 352; B+P, n = 352; PA, n = 354) attended at least 1 study visit and were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 33.8 mo (interquartile range, 23.8 to 36.7). Proportions of participants with at least 1 episode of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 42%; B+P, 40%; PA, 45%. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dental pain and/or infection when B+P (adjusted risk difference [97.5% CI]: -2% [-10% to 6%]) or PA (4% [-4% to 12%]) was compared with C+P. The mean (SD) number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection were as follows: C+P, 0.62 (0.95); B+P, 0.58 (0.87); and PA, 0.72 (0.98). Superiority could not be concluded for number of episodes between B+P (adjusted incident rate ratio (97.5% CI): 0.95 [0.75 to 1.21]) or PA (1.18 [0.94 to 1.48]) and C+P. In conclusion, there was no evidence of a difference among the 3 treatment approaches for incidence or number of episodes of dental pain and/or infection experienced by these participants with high caries risk and established disease (trial registration: ISRCTN77044005).

Identifying the barriers and facilitators for homeless people to achieve good oral health.

OBJECTIVE: A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators for people experiencing homelessness achieving good oral health. PARTICIPANTS: Adults using two homeless centres in Leeds. METHODS: Focus group discussions were convened with homeless people using support services. Both an inductive and deductive approach to data analysis was taken. Themes were identified and then a framework applied to analysis using Nvivo software. RESULTS: Three focus group discussions with 16 participants were conducted with people experiencing homelessness. The barriers identified were insufficient information on local dental services, negative attitudes of oral health professionals, low priority of dental care, anxiety and cost of dental treatments. Facilitators included single dental appointments, accessible dental locations and being treated with respect. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the barriers that prevent people experiencing homelessness from maintaining and improving their oral health, the participants were aware that they needed oral healthcare and requested that dental services were made available to them and were accessible in line with their socioeconomic status and needs.

Factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute conditions: an umbrella review across primary care and a systematic review focusing on primary dental care.

INTRODUCTION: One way to slow the spread of resistant bacteria is by improved stewardship of antibiotics: using them more carefully and reducing the number of prescriptions. With an estimated 7%-10% of antibiotic prescriptions globally originating from dental practices and up to 80% prescribed unnecessarily, dentistry has an important role to play. To support the design of new stewardship interventions through knowledge transfer between contexts, this study aimed to identify factors associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics to adults presenting with acute conditions across primary care (including dentistry). METHODS: Two reviews were undertaken: an umbrella review across primary healthcare and a systematic review in dentistry. Two authors independently selected and quality assessed the included studies. Factors were identified using an inductive thematic approach and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Comparisons between dental and other settings were explored. Registration number: PROSPERO_CRD42016037174. RESULTS: Searches identified 689 publications across primary care and 432 across dental care. Included studies (nine and seven, respectively) were assessed as of variable quality. They covered 46 countries, of which 12 were low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Across the two reviews, 30 factors were identified, with 'patient/condition characteristics', 'patient influence' and 'guidelines & information' the most frequent. Two factors were unique to dental studies: 'procedure possible' and 'treatment skills'. No factor related only to LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive list of factors associated with antibiotic prescribing to adults with acute conditions in primary care settings around the world has been collated and should assist theory-informed design of new context-specific stewardship interventions.

Barriers and facilitators for prevention in Danish dental care.

Objective: To explore barriers and facilitators to oral disease prevention in Danish dental care from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Methods: Eleven semi-structured focus groups and interviews about Danish oral healthcare were conducted with 27 stakeholders (general public, dental teams, dental policy makers) in Copenhagen. Transcripts were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis independently by KR and HL, supervised by JC and KVC. Results: Seven broad themes were identified, including both barriers and facilitators: Knowledge and attitudes, Education and training, Regulation, Incentivization, Multidisciplinary approach, Access to care and the Dental professional-patient relationship. Whilst all themes were relevant to each group of stakeholders, the salient driver within each theme was different for each group. Conclusions: Stakeholder perspectives on the Danish Oral health care system suggest the following are important features for a preventively focused system: (a) Involving all stakeholders in oral healthcare planning. (b) Securing sufficient and ongoing briefing regarding disease prevention for all stakeholders. (c) Regulatory support and creation of incentives to promote and facilitate implementation of disease prevention. (d) Appropriate prevention for disadvantaged groups within society which may be possible to a higher degree by means of multidisciplinary collaboration. (e) Personal relations between the patient and the professional based on mutual trust.

Toward More Patient-Centered and Prevention-Oriented Oral Health Care: The ADVOCATE Project.

ADVOCATE (Added Value for Oral Care) is a project funded by the European Commission's Horizon 2020 program, which aims to develop strategies for a system transition toward more patient-centered and prevention-oriented oral health care delivery within health care systems. This system should balance the restorative and preventive approaches in dental and oral health care. ADVOCATE is a partnership among 6 European Union member states, which involves collaboration among universities, state-funded health care providers, and private insurance companies in Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Aridhia, a biomedical informatics company based in Scotland. There are 6 interrelated work packages, which aim to address the following objectives: 1) in-depth evaluation of oral health care systems in European Union member states to identify best system designs for oral disease prevention, 2) development of a set of measures to provide information on oral care delivery and oral health outcomes, 3) evaluation of a feedback approach in dental practice that aims to facilitate a change toward preventive oral health care delivery, and 4) economic evaluation of strategies to promote preventive oral health care and development of policy recommendations for oral health care systems. The project is novel in its use of data that are routinely collected by health insurance organizations, as well as the engagement of key stakeholders from dental teams, insurers, patients, and policy makers in guiding the development and progress of the project. This article outlines in detail the objectives and research methodology of the ADVOCATE project and its anticipated impact. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This commentary describes the development of policy options to promote a greater focus on disease prevention in general dental practice. The approach builds on identifying the comparative effectiveness of alternative incentive schemes, as well as methods to monitor clinical and patient-derived measures of success in creating health for patients. The article describes the development and application of the measures and the evaluation of their success in orienting clinical practice more toward disease prevention.

Primary care dentists' experience of treating avulsed permanent teeth.

INTRODUCTION: An avulsed permanent tooth is one of the few true emergencies in dentistry. Children who suffer this injury require urgent dental care and prompt follow-up care. There is very limited evidence available regarding the provision of treatment for avulsion injuries in primary dental care. OBJECTIVES: To explore the experience of UK dentists in relation to the management of avulsed permanent teeth. METHOD: A self-completion questionnaire was designed and piloted. Questionnaires were sent to a random selection of one thousand GDPs with a stamped addressed return envelope. A second mailshot was sent to non-responders after eight weeks. Simple descriptive analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel. The results were compared with those from an earlier, similar study in Wales. RESULTS: A total response rate of 61% was achieved. Just over 40% of responding dentists recalled replanting an avulsed permanent tooth in a child. CONCLUSIONS: Many dentists have limited or no experience of treating children with avulsed permanent teeth. Thirty-four percent of dentists have children with avulsion injuries under their care. Children with these traumatic injuries may benefit from shared care involving an interdisciplinary specialist team, in line with recommendations from the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry National Clinical Guidelines for Management of Avulsed Permanent Teeth in Children.

Geographic and socioeconomic variations in adolescent toothbrushing: a multilevel cross-sectional study of 15 year olds in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: This study examined urban-rural and socioeconomic differences in adolescent toothbrushing. METHODS: The data were modelled using logistic multilevel modelling and the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method of estimation. Twice-a-day toothbrushing was regressed upon age, family affluence, family structure, school type, area-level deprivation and rurality, for boys and girls separately. RESULTS: Boys' toothbrushing was associated with area-level deprivation but not rurality. Variance at the school level remained significant in the final model for boys' toothbrushing. The association between toothbrushing and area-level deprivation was particularly strong for girls, after adjustment for individuals' family affluence and type of school attended. Rurality too was independently significant with lower odds of brushing teeth in accessible rural areas. CONCLUSION: The findings are at odds with the results of a previous study which showed lower caries prevalence among children living in rural Scotland. A further study concluded that adolescents have a better diet in rural Scotland. In total, these studies highlight the need for an examination into the relative importance of diet and oral health on caries, as increases are observed in population obesity and consumption of sugars.

Adult Dental Health Survey 2009: common oral health conditions and their impact on the population.

Data from the Adult Dental Survey conducted in 2009/10 have recorded some major changes in the pattern of oral conditions in British adults. The change in the number of sound and untreated teeth in recent decades has been particularly marked in younger adults. Across all ages there were 17.9 sound and untreated teeth per dentate adult, but among the youngest (16-24-year-olds) it was 26.9 teeth indicating rapidly improving prospects for young adults compared with their predecessors. Between 1998 and 2009 the overall prevalence of caries of all types in England has fallen dramatically from 54% to 31% overall, but the number of teeth affected by caries among those people affected by decay is almost unchanged at around 2.7 affected teeth per person. Caries, and the reduction in caries, affected people of all ages. The rate of new restorations is correspondingly low and young adults in particular had fewer restorations than their predecessors. Much activity is now likely to be around repairing or extending existing restorations. By contrast 37% of dentate adults had crowns, up from 34% in 1998, averaging around three crowns per person among those who have crowns. A minority of British adults had a very healthy periodontal status (17%) and moderate periodontal disease (pockets of 4 mm to less than 6 mm) has also reduced markedly in the last decade, in line with measurably less plaque and more frequent brushing. However, more severe disease has increased slightly (from 6% to 9% of adults). The frequency of impact of poor oral health on people's lives has also reduced in the last decade. However, while clinical conditions are improving, there is a proportion of dentate adults that experience negative effects on their daily life frequently (16%) and/or severely (17%) due to their oral health; who are more likely to be those in a lower socioeconomic position and those with worse clinical status in terms of caries and periodontal disease.