Abstract
Introduction Oral disease in very young children is far more common among children in deprived and vulnerable families than among their peer group. Such children are at the highest risk of requiring a general anaesthetic for removal of decayed primary teeth.
Aim This study aimed to create new knowledge about how best to promote oral health among a target population, about who very little is established with regard to how to successfully intervene to improve long-term oral health.
Method Phase one of the study developed a logic model, and phase two delivered an oral health-promoting intervention by working with the Family Nurse Partnership. The social and empirical acceptability of the intervention was explored, and the attributes needed by people delivering such an intervention were investigated in-depth.
Results The thematic analysis of phase one data produced seven key themes which appeared to influence parents' ability and willingness to accept an oral health intervention aimed at their infants. These were: their personal experiences, current oral health knowledge, desire for dental care for their child, the timing of an intervention, their perception of difficulties, family norms and the level of trust developed.
Conclusion It is possible to motivate the most vulnerable families to establish behaviours which are conducive to good oral health, and that intervention is feasible and appropriate if a trusting relationship is adopted by the deliverer of the intervention. Families were successful in adopting oral health behaviours and visiting dental services when such circumstances were established.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
National institute for Health and Care Excellence. Oral health: local authorities and partners. 2014. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph55/chapter/About-this-guideline (accessed July 2019).
NHS Digital. Tooth extractions for children admitted as inpatients to hospital, aged 10 years and under. 2019. Available at https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/clinical-indicators/nhs-outcomes-framework/current/domain-3-helping-people-to-recover-from-episodes-of-ill-health-or-following-injury-nof/3-7-ii-tooth-extractions-due-to-decay-for-children-admitted-as-inpatients-to-hospital-aged-10-years-and-under (accessed July 2019).
Public Health England. National Dental Epidemiology Programme for England: Oral health survey of five-year-old children 2012: A report on the prevalence and severity of dental decay. London: Public Health England, 2013. Available at https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160603145410/http://www.nwph.net/dentalhealth/Oral%20Health%205yr%20old%20children%202012%20final%20report%20gateway%20approved.pdf (accessed July 2019).
Ronnerman A. The effect of early loss of primary molars on tooth eruption and space conditions. A longitudinal study. Acta Odontol Scand 1977; 35: 229-239.
Locker D. Concepts of oral health disease and the quality of life. In Slade G D (ed) Measuring oral health and quality of life. pp 11-25. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1997.
Malek Mohamaddi T, Wright C M, Kay E J. Childhood growth and dental caries. Community Dent Health 2009; 26: 38-42.
Alalunsua S, Kleemola-Kujala E, Nystrom M, Evalaht M, Groonroos L. Caries in the primary teeth and salivary streptococcus mutans and lacto bacillus levels as indicators of caries in permanent teeth. Paediatr Dent 1987; 9: 126-130.
Tickle M, Kay E J, Bearn D. Socio-economic status and orthodontic treatment need. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27: 413-418.
Wu J, Dean K S, Rosen Z, Muennig P A. The cost-effectiveness analysis of nurse family partnership in the United States. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2017; 28: 1578-1579.
Bandura A. The anatomy of stages of change. Am J Health Promot 1997; 12: 8-10.
Miller W R, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2002.
Rath T, Clifton D O. How full is your bucket? Positive strategies for work and life. London: Gallup Press, 2004.
Hart E, Bond M. Action research for health and social care: a guide to practice. London: Open University Press, 1995.
Public Health England. Delivering better oral health: an evidence-based toolkit for prevention. 3rd ed. London: Public Health England, 2017. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605266/Delivering_better_oral_health.pdf (accessed July 2019).
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative analysis for applied policy research. London: Sage Publications, 2002.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Oral health: local authority oral health improvement strategies. Evidence review 1: review of evidence of the effectiveness of community based oral health improvement programmes and interventions. 2014.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Medical Research Council Public Health Intervention Development. Fund Grant No MR/N011449/1. The study was undertaken with the understanding and written consent of each participant and was conducted according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kay, E., Quinn, C., Gude, A. et al. A qualitative exploration of promoting oral health for infants in vulnerable families. Br Dent J 227, 137–142 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0528-8
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-019-0528-8
