Motivational interviewing for preventing oral morbidities in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 1.8 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Community dentistry and oral epidemiology Pub Date : 2023-09-05 DOI:10.1111/cdoe.12904

Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez, Tomás Varnet-Pérez, Cecilia María Martínez-Delgado, María del Carmen Villanueva-Vilchis, María de los Ángeles Ramírez-Trujillo, Daniel Demétrio Faustino-Silva

{"title":"Motivational interviewing for preventing oral morbidities in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez, Tomás Varnet-Pérez, Cecilia María Martínez-Delgado, María del Carmen Villanueva-Vilchis, María de los Ángeles Ramírez-Trujillo, Daniel Demétrio Faustino-Silva","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.12904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to assess whether motivational interviewing (MI) effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Studies considered were randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized controlled trials and community-based randomized trials assessing interventions based on MI or indicating that a counselling technique based on the principles developed by Miller and Rollnick was used. Controls were any type of oral health education or negative controls. Participants were 18–60 years old. The main outcome was any oral morbidity. From 602 studies identified in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS databases, seven studies were included in the synthesis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Studies included only evaluated periodontal outcomes, no studies were found for other oral morbidities. Patients' mean age was 43.7 years, and the follow-up time after MI or MI-based intervention varied between 1 month and 1 year. The total study population was 272 people with moderate-to-severe periodontitis; other groups analysed were pregnant women (<i>n</i> = 112) and patients with mental disorders and alcohol problems (<i>n</i> = 60). Meta-analysis for the plaque index (four studies, <i>n</i> = 267), bleeding on probing (two studies, <i>n</i> = 177) and gingival index (two studies, <i>n</i> = 166) were carried out. The summary effects for the random-effects model were estimated respectively as −3.59 percentage points (CI: [−11.44; 4.25] for plaque index, −6.41 percentage points (CI: [−12.18, −0.65]) for bleeding on probing and −0.70 (CI: [−1.87; 0.48]) for gingival index, marginally favouring the MI group. The reduced number of studies, the non-disclosure of some aspects of the data and the heterogeneity among them undermine the precision of the estimates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The current evidence available is limited to periodontal outcomes, and it is not possible to determine whether MI effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12904","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to assess whether motivational interviewing (MI) effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.

Methods

Studies considered were randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized controlled trials and community-based randomized trials assessing interventions based on MI or indicating that a counselling technique based on the principles developed by Miller and Rollnick was used. Controls were any type of oral health education or negative controls. Participants were 18–60 years old. The main outcome was any oral morbidity. From 602 studies identified in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS databases, seven studies were included in the synthesis.

Results

Studies included only evaluated periodontal outcomes, no studies were found for other oral morbidities. Patients' mean age was 43.7 years, and the follow-up time after MI or MI-based intervention varied between 1 month and 1 year. The total study population was 272 people with moderate-to-severe periodontitis; other groups analysed were pregnant women (n = 112) and patients with mental disorders and alcohol problems (n = 60). Meta-analysis for the plaque index (four studies, n = 267), bleeding on probing (two studies, n = 177) and gingival index (two studies, n = 166) were carried out. The summary effects for the random-effects model were estimated respectively as −3.59 percentage points (CI: [−11.44; 4.25] for plaque index, −6.41 percentage points (CI: [−12.18, −0.65]) for bleeding on probing and −0.70 (CI: [−1.87; 0.48]) for gingival index, marginally favouring the MI group. The reduced number of studies, the non-disclosure of some aspects of the data and the heterogeneity among them undermine the precision of the estimates.

Conclusion

The current evidence available is limited to periodontal outcomes, and it is not possible to determine whether MI effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.

查看原文本刊更多论文

预防成人口腔疾病的动机访谈：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估动机访谈法（MI）是否能有效预防成人口腔疾病：所考虑的研究为随机对照试验、分组随机对照试验和社区随机对照试验，这些试验评估了基于MI的干预措施，或表明使用了基于米勒和罗尔尼克所制定原则的咨询技术。对照组为任何类型的口腔健康教育或阴性对照组。参与者年龄为 18-60 岁。主要结果是口腔疾病。从 MEDLINE、Scopus、Web of Science 和 LILACS 数据库中确定的 602 项研究中，有 7 项研究被纳入综述：结果：纳入的研究只评估了牙周病的治疗效果，没有发现关于其他口腔疾病的研究。患者的平均年龄为 43.7 岁，MI 或基于 MI 的干预后的随访时间为 1 个月到 1 年不等。研究总人数为272名中重度牙周炎患者，其他分析群体包括孕妇（112人）和精神障碍及酗酒患者（60人）。对牙菌斑指数（4 项研究，n = 267）、探诊出血（2 项研究，n = 177）和牙龈指数（2 项研究，n = 166）进行了元分析。随机效应模型的汇总效应估计分别为：牙菌斑指数-3.59 个百分点（CI：[-11.44; 4.25]），探诊出血-6.41 个百分点（CI：[-12.18, -0.65]），牙龈指数-0.70（CI：[-1.87; 0.48]），MI 组略胜一筹。研究数量的减少、数据某些方面的未披露以及研究间的异质性都影响了估计值的精确性：目前可用的证据仅限于牙周结果，无法确定口腔黏膜病是否能有效预防成年人的口腔疾病。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

8.70%

发文量

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： The aim of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology is to serve as a forum for scientifically based information in community dentistry, with the intention of continually expanding the knowledge base in the field. The scope is therefore broad, ranging from original studies in epidemiology, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, and health services research through to methodological reports in program planning, implementation and evaluation. Reports dealing with people of all age groups are welcome. The journal encourages manuscripts which present methodologically detailed scientific research findings from original data collection or analysis of existing databases. Preference is given to new findings. Confirmations of previous findings can be of value, but the journal seeks to avoid needless repetition. It also encourages thoughtful, provocative commentaries on subjects ranging from research methods to public policies. Purely descriptive reports are not encouraged, nor are behavioral science reports with only marginal application to dentistry. The journal is published bimonthly.

文献相关原料

公司名称	产品信息	采购帮参考价格