Hoogstraten 1983.
| Methods |
Trial design: parallel (3 arms) Location: group practice, Abcoude, the Netherlands Number of centres: 1 Duration: recruitment and follow‐up dates not reported. Participants followed‐up at 12 months |
|
| Participants |
Participants: 108 male and female inhabitants of Abcoude Inclusion criteria: recently registered patients of the group practice, between the age of 15 years and 60 years old Exclusion criteria: no full dentures and no more than 1 person per family admitted to the sample Age at baseline (years): range 15 to 60 Gender: not reported Number randomised: 150 (intervention Group A: 50; intervention Group B: 50; control Group C: 50) Number evaluated: 108 (intervention Group A: 36; intervention Group B: 36; intervention Group C: 36) |
|
| Interventions |
Interventions: ‐ Group A: subjects received standard information and instruction on dental hygiene. The instruction, given by 1 of 4 female hygienists during about 30 minutes, consisted of information concerning the relations between dental health and sugar consumption, oral hygiene, different methods of oral hygiene, the use of fluoride, information about regular control visits to the dentist, etc. ‐ Group B: subjects received the identical standard information as Group A subjects. Before that, however, they were shown a 10‐minute film (a Dutch version of "4 Tons of Teeth") presenting more or less the same issues as the hygienist's standard presentation Control: ‐ Group C: received no instruction at all (control condition); special care was taken to insure that these subjects were excluded from information on dental hygiene Prophylaxis provided: scaling and polishing at initial appointment Member of dental team delivering intervention: hygienist Frequency of intervention: intervention Group A: not clearly reported; appears to be 1 intervention visit with OHA. Intervention Group B: not clearly reported; appears to be 1 visit with OHA and 10‐minute film. Control: no OHA provided Intensity of intervention (length of time): intervention Group A: 30 minutes OHA. Intervention Group B: 30 minutes OHA and 10‐minute video. Control: no OHA provided Setting: primary care Disease level: not reported |
|
| Outcomes | "The questionnaire contained items on dental knowledge, attitude, behaviour, and fear of dental treatment. The subject's knowledge was tapped with 14 multiple choice items. Each item had 5 alternatives, 1 of which was correct. The knowledge scores thus ranged from 0 to 14. The attitude towards dental hygiene was measured with 10 items of the summated‐rating format with scale points ranging from 1 (agree) to 5 (disagree). The higher the score, the more positive the subject's attitude. Fear of dental treatment was assessed with 1 item, with scale points ranging from 1 (very fearful) to 5 (not fearful). 6 aspects of self‐reported dental behaviour were measured: sugar consumption (range 1‐5), brushing frequency (range 1‐5), brushing moment (range 1‐6), use of toothbrush (range 1‐6), use of interdental stimulators (range 1‐5) and oral hygiene (range 1‐5). Again, the higher the score, the more positive the subjects behaviour" "Half of the subjects of each condition received a pre‐test (filling in a questionnaire). The other half did not complete this pre‐test. Through this 2 x 3 design, not only the effect of the educational programs can be assessed, but also the possible effect of the pre‐test on subsequent post‐test scores" |
|
| Notes |
Funding: not reported Sample size calculation: not reported Adverse effects: not reported Declarations/conflicts of interest: not reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quotes: "They were randomly selected", "Subjects were assigned at random to 1 of 3 conditions" Comment: insufficient information provided on the random sequence generation |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: insufficient information on allocation concealment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comments: blinding of participants was not possible; it is unclear the influence this would have on the risk of bias for this domain |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: patients completed a questionnaire and would have been aware of the intervention provided or otherwise. The outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote: "As usual in longitudinal studies, however, there was a certain dropout of subjects due to reasons such as moving house and leaving no change of address, emigration or an occasional refusal to cooperate" Comment: insufficient information to assess bias |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes in methods section were reported |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | Quote: Group A "Whilst presenting the information to the patient, the hygienist performed regular preventive measures, such as scaling and polishing" Comment: unclear if Group B and Group C received the same regular preventive measures. No response from contact author regarding further information |