Vichayanrat 2012

Methods	Study design: quasi‐experimental Conducted in: Chon Buri Province, Thailand Unit of randomisation: subdistricts Unit of analysis: individual Setting: health centres and homes Funded by: Funding was not disclosed. However, study authors declared, "Lion (Thailand) and Colgate‐Palmolive (Thailand) Ltd and Diethelm & Co contributed toothbrushes and toothpaste for the study" Duration of the study: 1 year
Participants	Inclusion criteria: Children and their caregivers were included in the study if children were 6 to 36 months of age, and caregivers had no systemic disease and would routinely bring the child for vaccination Exclusion criteria: Children and their caregivers were excluded if they were unwilling to participate or did not complete the questionnaire Age at baseline: 6 to 36 months N (controls baseline): 52 N (controls follow‐up): 52 N (interventions baseline): 62 N (interventions follow‐up): 62 Recruitment: Experimental and control districts were selected on the basis of comparable population structure, caries prevalence and no existing oral health programmes at health centres Gender: not reported
Interventions	Interventions Oral health education and services at health centres. Health centre staff presented oral health education, prescribed fluoride supplements and provided toothbrushes Home visits by lay health workers provided social support, information and appraisal, as well as emotional support, to caregivers, to enable them to improve child oral health Community mobilisation was designed to create awareness about early childhood caries Control: provision of toothbrushes and routine health care Duration of intervention: 1 year
Outcomes	Dental caries (dmft)
Implementation related factors	Theoretical basis: self efficacy theory, health belief model and social support and organisational change theory Resources for implementation: lay health worker salaries, toothpastes and toothbrushes Who delivered the intervention: lay health workers PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: parent’s occupation and family income and age PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: not reported Outcomes related to harms/unintended effects: not reported Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: not reported Economic evaluation: not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	No randomisation process was involved (quasi‐experimental design)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear