Behaviour change / oral health promotion interventions delivered by non-dental professionals and health workers (nurses, midwives, health visitors, community health workers) vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise): Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs)
Behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers produced a small, statistically significant reduction in caries experience at the surface level (dmfs SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 12 studies); the review judged the overall evidence to be of low quality (not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Behaviour change / oral health promotion interventions delivered by non-dental professionals and health workers (nurses, midwives, health visitors, community health workers) vs Control (usual care, no intervention, or comparison group) Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs) · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers · Primary care and community settings; interventions delivered by non-dental health workers (multiple countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, UK, USA, etc.) Behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers produced a small, statistically significant reduction in caries experience at the surface level (dmfs SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 12 studies); the review judged the overall evidence to be of low quality (not GRADE-rated). The effectiveness of behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers in promoting… (2022) All outcomes | SMD -0.15 [-0.25, -0.04] | 12 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The effectiveness of behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers in promoting children's oral health: A… 2022 All outcomes | Inception to March 2021 (Medline/PubMed 1946-March 2021) | 59 | Critically Low / 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.
- Results of a two year dental health education program to reduce dental caries in young Aboriginal children in New South Wales, Australia · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Randomized Trial of Motivational Interviewing to Prevent Early Childhood Caries in Public Housing. · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- A Cluster-Randomized, Community-Based, Tribally Delivered Oral Health Promotion Trial in Navajo Head Start Children. · 2016 · included by 1 of these review
- Teeth Tales: a community-based child oral health promotion trial with migrant families in Australia. · 2015 · included by 1 of these review
- Motivational interviewing with American Indian mothers to prevent early childhood caries: study design and methodology of a randomized… · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- Cluster-randomized trial of infant nutrition training for caries prevention. · 2013 · included by 1 of these review
- Impact of an oral health intervention on pre‐school children <3 years of age in a rural setting in Australia · 2011 · included by 1 of these review
- An oral health promotion program for an urban minority population of preschool children · 2003 · included by 1 of these review
- Effectiveness on oral health of a long-term health education programme for mothers with young children · 2000 · included by 1 of these review
- Davies et al. 2005 · included by 1 of these review
- Harrison et al. 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- Whittle et al. 2008 · 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.