Bellomo 2005.
Methods | Randomised controlled trial, 2 arms (each with 2 subgroups: independent and assisted) Study period: not reported Planned follow‐up period: 6 months |
|
Participants | Country: Switzerland Setting: long‐term care home Target audience for intervention: long‐term care home residents Number of randomised participants (long‐term care home residents): 61 Number of analysed participants (long‐term care home residents): 61 Age, mean, years: 85.4 in IG, 86.8 in CG (range for both groups 72 to 97 years) Female: 73.3% in IG, 71% in CG Edentulous: 36.7% in IG, 35.6% in CG Residents with dental prosthesis: 80% (of all participants) Inclusion criteria: residents of the long‐term care home (irrespective of state of (oral) health) Exclusion criteria: n/a |
|
Interventions |
Intervention group 2 subgroups (one with independent residents (IG1) and one with residents who are in need of assistance (IG2)): Instruction/skills training:
Education:
Control group 2 subgroups (one with independent residents (CG1) and one with residents who are in need of assistance (CG2))
Education:
Co‐interventions n/a |
|
Outcomes |
Primary outcomes Oral hygiene measures, level of autonomy (brushing), and residents' oral health‐related behaviour were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months after start of the study
|
|
Funding | Not reported | |
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information in the paper (correspondence: "randomisation was done by the nursing home via the patient allocation list (availability of rooms) in either one building or the other. no computer sequence generation etc.") |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Insufficient information in the paper (correspondence: "no concealment") |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Groups corresponded to 2 separate buildings, which assured blinding of participants to the other study arm. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Insufficient information in the paper (correspondence: "outcome assessor was not blinded") |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | "Two participants passed away during the experimental period and were excluded from analysis." (study group affiliation unclear) |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Correspondence: protocol not available, no trial registration |
Other bias | Low risk | None apparent |