Dataset Information

E-learning or educational leaflet: does it make a difference in oral health promotion? A clustered randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The early recognition of technology together with great ability to use computers and smart systems have promoted researchers to investigate the possibilities of utilizing technology for improving health care in children. The aim of this study was to compare between the traditional educational leaflets and E-applications in improving oral health knowledge, oral hygiene and gingival health in schoolchildren of Damascus city, Syria. METHODS:A clustered randomized controlled trial at two public primary schools was performed. About 220 schoolchildren aged 10-11 years were included in this study and grouped into two clusters. Children in Leaflet cluster received oral health education through leaflets, while children in E-learning cluster received oral health education through an E-learning program. A questionnaire was designed to register information related to oral health knowledge and to record Plaque and Gingival indices. Questionnaire administration and clinical assessment were undertaken at baseline, 6 and at 12 weeks of oral health education. Data was analysed using one way repeated measures ANOVA, post hoc Bonferroni test and independent samples t-test. RESULTS:Leaflet cluster (107 participants) had statistically significant better oral health knowledge than E-learning cluster (104 participants) at 6 weeks (P?

SUBMITTER: Al Bardaweel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5946495 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

E-learning or educational leaflet: does it make a difference in oral health promotion? A clustered randomized trial.

Al Bardaweel Susan S Dashash Mayssoon M

BMC oral health 20180510 1

<h4>Background</h4>The early recognition of technology together with great ability to use computers and smart systems have promoted researchers to investigate the possibilities of utilizing technology for improving health care in children. The aim of this study was to compare between the traditional educational leaflets and E-applications in improving oral health knowledge, oral hygiene and gingival health in schoolchildren of Damascus city, Syria.<h4>Methods</h4>A clustered randomized controlle ...[more]

PMID: 29747625

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the nature, quality and independence of scientific evidence provided in support of claims in industry-authored educational materials in oral health.DesignA content analysis of educational materials authored by the four major multinational oral health product manufacturers.SettingAcute care settings.Participants68 documents focused on oral health or oral care, targeted at acute care clinicians and identified as 'educational' on companies' international websites.Main outcome measuresData were extracted in duplicate for three areas of focus: (a) products referenced in the documents, (b) product-related claims and (c) citations substantiating claims. We assessed claim-citation pairs to determine if information in the citation supported the claim. We analysed the inter-relationships among cited authors and companies using social network analysis.ResultsDocuments ranged from training videos to posters to brochures to continuing education courses. The majority of educational materials explicitly mentioned a product (59/68, 87%), a branded product (35/68, 51%), and made a product-related claim (55/68, 81%). Among claims accompanied by a citation, citations did not support the majority (91/147, 62%) of claims, largely because citations were unrelated. References used to support claims most often represented lower levels of evidence: only 9% were systematic reviews (7/76) and 13% were randomised controlled trials (10/76). We found a network of 20 authors to account for 37% (n=77/206) of all references in claim-citation pairs; 60% (12/20) of the top 20 cited authors received financial support from one of the four sampled manufacturers.ConclusionsResources to support clinicians' ongoing education are scarce. However, caution should be exercised when relying on industry-authored materials to support continuing education for oral health. Evidence of sponsorship bias and reliance on key opinion leaders suggests that industry-authored educational materials have promotional intent and should be regulated as such.

Project description:BackgroundThe COordinated Oral health Promotion (CO-OP) Chicago trial will test the efficacy of a community health worker (CHW) intervention to improve oral health behaviors for children at high risk for early childhood caries. Before implementing the cluster-randomized controlled trial, we conducted a formative assessment to determine the final design. We used qualitative methods to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed recruitment, data collection, and intervention plan.MethodsKey informant interviews (N = 37) and site observations were conducted at 10 pediatric primary care clinics and 10 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infant and Children (WIC) centers to gain insight from providers and administrators at the locations where recruitment and intervention will occur. Eight focus groups (N = 68) were conducted with caregivers of children to capture the parent perspective. Conceptual coding methods from grounded theory were applied to organize the data into the final themes.ResultsFamilies, clinics, and WIC centers were all very interested in additional supports for oral health and were enthusiastic about CHWs. Challenges included competing family priorities that might interfere in study enrollment and intervention efficacy. Physical space for enrollment and intervention delivery was a major barrier for some sites. Home visits for data collection and intervention delivery would be unacceptable for some families. These challenges and barriers prompted us to make major changes in our trial design. We opened the option for data collection to occur in multiple locations. We eliminated the home-only arm of the trial. Clinics and WIC centers that are randomized to the non-intervention arm will now have CHWs available at the study conclusion. Finally, we aligned the CHW oral health topics to the needs of families.ConclusionsWe conducted this comprehensive formative assessment to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the CO-OP Chicago trial. While overall acceptance of the trial was high, the results highlighted specific issues with the proposed trial implementation plan and led to several critical design changes. This type of formative work requires a significant upfront investment but we expect it will translate into savings through better recruitment, retention, intervention implementation and adherence, and result dissemination.

Project description:The authors tested the effectiveness of a community-based, tribally delivered oral health promotion (OHP) intervention (INT) at reducing caries increment in Navajo children attending Head Start. In a 3-y cluster-randomized trial, we developed an OHP INT with Navajo input that was delivered by trained Navajo lay health workers to children attending 52 Navajo Head Start classrooms (26 INT, 26 usual care [UC]). The INT was designed as a highly personalized set of oral health-focused interactions (5 for children and 4 for parents), along with 4 fluoride varnish applications delivered in Head Start during academic years of 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013. The authors evaluated INT impact on decayed, missing, and filled tooth surfaces (dmfs) increment compared with UC. Other outcomes included caries prevalence and caregiver oral health-related knowledge and behaviors. Modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were conducted. The authors enrolled 1,016 caregiver-child dyads. Baseline mean dmfs/caries prevalence equaled 19.9/86.5% for the INT group and 22.8/90.1% for the UC group, respectively. INT adherence was 53% (i.e., ≥3 child OHP events, ≥1 caregiver OHP events, and ≥3 fluoride varnish). After 3 y, dmfs increased in both groups (+12.9 INT vs. +10.8 UC; P = 0.216), as did caries prevalence (86.5% to 96.6% INT vs. 90.1% to 98.2% UC; P = 0.808) in a modified intention-to-treat analysis of 897 caregiver-child dyads receiving 1 y of INT. Caregiver oral health knowledge scores improved in both groups (75.1% to 81.2% INT vs. 73.6% to 79.5% UC; P = 0.369). Caregiver oral health behavior scores improved more rapidly in the INT group versus the UC group (P = 0.006). The dmfs increment was smaller among adherent INT children (+8.9) than among UC children (+10.8; P = 0.028) in a per-protocol analysis. In conclusion, the severity of dental disease in Navajo Head Start children is extreme and difficult to improve. The authors argue that successful approaches to prevention may require even more highly personalized approaches shaped by cultural perspectives and attentive to the social determinants of oral health (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01116739).

Project description:COordinated Oral health Promotion (CO-OP) Chicago is a two-arm cluster-randomized trial with a wait-list control. The primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy of an oral health community health worker (CHW) intervention to improve oral health behaviors in low-income, urban children under the age of three years. Exploratory aims will determine cost-effectiveness, and if any CHW intervention impact on child tooth brushing behaviors varies when CHWs are based out of a medical clinic compared to a community setting. This paper describes progress toward achieving these aims. Participating families were recruited from community social service centers and pediatric primary care medical clinics in Cook County, Illinois. Sites were cluster-randomized to CHW intervention or usual services (a wait-list control). The intervention is oral health support from CHWs delivered in four visits to individual families over one year. The trial sample consists of 420 child/caregiver dyads enrolled at the 20 participating sites over 11 months. Participant demographics varied across the sites, but primary outcomes values at baseline did not. Data on brushing frequency, plaque, and other oral health behaviors are collected at three timepoints: baseline, 6-, and 12-months. The primary analysis will assess differences in caregiver-reported child brushing frequency and observed plaque score between the two arms at 12-months. The trial is currently in the active intervention phase. The trial's cluster-randomized controlled design takes a real-world approach by integrating into existing health and social service agencies and collecting data in participant homes. Results will address an important child health disparity. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03397589. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: University of Illinois at Chicago Protocol Record 2017-1090. National Institutes of Dental & Craniofacial Research of the National Institutes of Health (NIDCR) Protocol Number: 17-074-E. NCT03397589.

Dataset Information

E-learning or educational leaflet: does it make a difference in oral health promotion? A clustered randomized trial.

Publications

E-learning or educational leaflet: does it make a difference in oral health promotion? A clustered randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets