Community and caregiver oral health education plus media campaign vs Pre-intervention baseline (and sites that discontinued the prevention program): Reduction in prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD)
- Population
- Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start children
- Intervention
- Community and caregiver oral health education plus media campaign
- Comparison
- Pre-intervention baseline (and sites that discontinued the prevention program)
- Outcome
- Reduction in prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD)
Community and caregiver oral health education was associated with a significant ~25% overall reduction in baby bottle tooth decay among Head Start children (certainty not graded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Community and caregiver oral health education (training community volunteers, health workers and site coordinators; caregiver counselling; oral health media campaign) vs Pre-intervention baseline (and sites that discontinued the prevention program) Reduction in prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD) · Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start (preschool) children · 3 to 8 years, Head Start sites in Alaska (1) and the continental US (11); Alaska Native and American Indian communities Community and caregiver oral health education was associated with a significant ~25% overall reduction in baby bottle tooth decay among Head Start children (certainty not graded). Reducing Alaska Native paediatric oral health disparities: a systematic review of oral health interventions… (2013) All outcomes | Percent reduction in BBTD prevalence 25 | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reducing Alaska Native paediatric oral health disparities: a systematic review of oral health interventions and a case study on multilevel… 2013 All outcomes | October 5, 2012 | 11 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Bruerd et al. 1989 · included by 1 of these review
- Bruerd & Jones 1996 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.