BACKGROUND: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples' oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research.METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to 'oral health assessments', 'non-dental healthcare professionals' and 'older people (60+)' were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using "The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments" (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate).RESULTS: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene.CONCLUSION: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.
The imbalance between demand and supply in Dutch healthcare led to the introduction of task redistribution at the beginning of the 21st century. Some new occupations arrived, and many, especially occupations in allied healthcare, underwent major changes in scope of practice and authorization. One example is dental hygiene, which is the field of study chosen for this thesis.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic and meta-analytic review aimed to quantify the association of psychosocial correlates with oral hygiene behaviour among 9- to 19-year olds. METHODS: A systematic search up to August 2015 was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. If necessary, authors of studies were contacted to obtain unpublished statistical information. A study was eligible for inclusion when it evaluated the association between the psychosocial correlates and oral hygiene behaviour varying from self-reports to clinical measurements, including plaque and bleeding scores. A modified New Castle Ottawa Scale was applied to examine the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven data sets (k) presented in 22 publications, addressing nine psychosocial correlates, were found to be eligible for the meta-analysis. For both tooth brushing and oral hygiene behaviour, random effect models revealed significant weighted average correlation (r+ ) for the psychosocial factors: 'intention', 'self-efficacy', 'attitude' (not significant for tooth brushing), 'social influence', 'coping planning' and 'action planning' (r+ ranging from 0.18 to 0.57). Little or no associations were found for 'locus of control', 'self-esteem' and 'sense of coherence' (r+ ranges from 0.01 to 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The data at present indicates that 'self-efficacy', 'intention', 'social influences', 'coping planning' and 'action planning' are potential psychosocial determinants of oral health behaviour. Future studies should consider a range of psychological factors that have not been studied, but have shown to be important psychosocial determinants of health behaviours, such as 'self-determination', 'anticipated regret', 'action control' and 'self-identity'. Effectiveness of addressing these potential determinants to induce behaviour change should be further examined by intervention trials.
MULTIFILE
