Validating a Conceptual Model on Topical Fluoride Hesitancy With Latino Parents.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Education & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-19 DOI:10.1177/10901981241231500
Stephanie Cruz, Haley Holland, Donald L Chi
{"title":"Validating a Conceptual Model on Topical Fluoride Hesitancy With Latino Parents.","authors":"Stephanie Cruz, Haley Holland, Donald L Chi","doi":"10.1177/10901981241231500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fluoride hesitancy is a growing public health challenge and interventions to address it may need to be tailored for minoritized subgroups to address oral health inequities. The goals of this qualitative study were to investigate the extent to which an existing conceptual model on topical fluoride hesitancy is applicable to Latino parents and whether applicability differed between Spanish-speaking Latino (SL) and English-speaking Latino (EL) parents. We conducted semi-structured one-on-one interviews with non-Latino English-speaking parents (<i>N</i> = 50), SL parents (<i>n</i> = 8), and EL parents (<i>n</i> = 8). We coded the transcripts deductively and compared our findings both qualitatively and quantitatively to an existing model on topical fluoride hesitancy comprising 21 categories classified into six domains. We compared frequencies across model domains and categories for Latino versus non-Latino parents as well as for SL versus EL parents. Latino parents were represented across all six domains and 21 categories of the conceptual model. Comparing Latino and non-Latino parents, representation was similar across Domains 1 to 3 (necessity, chemicals, and harm); Latino parents were more highly represented in Domains 4 to 6 (uncertainty, pressure, and choice) compared with non-Latino parents. A larger proportion of EL parents thought a healthy diet was more important than fluoride (Category 1d) and a larger proportion of SL parents felt they did not know enough about fluoride (Category 4a). An existing conceptual model on topical fluoride hesitancy was generally a good fit for SL and EL parents. However, differential representation across model categories suggests that fluoride-related communication and intervention approaches may need to be tailored to Latino parents based on language preference.</p>","PeriodicalId":12974,"journal":{"name":"Health Education & Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"719-732"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981241231500","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fluoride hesitancy is a growing public health challenge and interventions to address it may need to be tailored for minoritized subgroups to address oral health inequities. The goals of this qualitative study were to investigate the extent to which an existing conceptual model on topical fluoride hesitancy is applicable to Latino parents and whether applicability differed between Spanish-speaking Latino (SL) and English-speaking Latino (EL) parents. We conducted semi-structured one-on-one interviews with non-Latino English-speaking parents (N = 50), SL parents (n = 8), and EL parents (n = 8). We coded the transcripts deductively and compared our findings both qualitatively and quantitatively to an existing model on topical fluoride hesitancy comprising 21 categories classified into six domains. We compared frequencies across model domains and categories for Latino versus non-Latino parents as well as for SL versus EL parents. Latino parents were represented across all six domains and 21 categories of the conceptual model. Comparing Latino and non-Latino parents, representation was similar across Domains 1 to 3 (necessity, chemicals, and harm); Latino parents were more highly represented in Domains 4 to 6 (uncertainty, pressure, and choice) compared with non-Latino parents. A larger proportion of EL parents thought a healthy diet was more important than fluoride (Category 1d) and a larger proportion of SL parents felt they did not know enough about fluoride (Category 4a). An existing conceptual model on topical fluoride hesitancy was generally a good fit for SL and EL parents. However, differential representation across model categories suggests that fluoride-related communication and intervention approaches may need to be tailored to Latino parents based on language preference.

验证拉丁裔家长对局部氟化物犹豫不决的概念模型。
氟化物犹豫不决是一项日益严峻的公共卫生挑战,为解决这一问题,可能需要针对少数族裔亚群体制定干预措施,以解决口腔健康不平等问题。本定性研究的目的是调查现有的局部氟化物犹豫概念模型在多大程度上适用于拉丁裔家长,以及适用性在讲西班牙语的拉丁裔家长(SL)和讲英语的拉丁裔家长(EL)之间是否存在差异。我们对非拉丁裔英语家长(50 人)、拉丁裔家长(8 人)和拉丁裔英语家长(8 人)进行了半结构化一对一访谈。我们对访谈记录进行了演绎编码,并将我们的发现与现有的局部氟化物犹豫模型进行了定性和定量比较,该模型由 21 个类别组成,分为 6 个领域。我们比较了拉丁裔家长和非拉丁裔家长以及非拉丁裔家长和英裔家长在不同模型领域和类别中的频率。拉丁裔家长在概念模型的所有六个领域和 21 个类别中都有代表。与非拉丁裔家长相比,拉丁裔家长在领域 1 至 3(必要性、化学品和伤害)中的代表性相似;与非拉丁裔家长相比,拉丁裔家长在领域 4 至 6(不确定性、压力和选择)中的代表性更高。较大比例的 EL 家长认为健康饮食比氟化物更重要(第 1d 类),较大比例的 SL 家长认为他们对氟化物了解不够(第 4a 类)。现有的局部用氟犹豫不决概念模型总体上很适合单亲家庭和英语族群家长。然而,模型类别之间的差异表明,与氟有关的沟通和干预方法可能需要根据语言偏好为拉丁裔家长量身定制。
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
Health Education & Behavior
Health Education & Behavior PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Health Education & Behavior is the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE). The journal publishes authoritative and practical information on critical health issues for a broad range of professionals interested in understanding factors associated with health behavior and health status, and strategies to improve social and behavioral health. The journal is interested in articles directed toward researchers and/or practitioners in health behavior and health education. Empirical research, case study, program evaluation, literature reviews, and articles discussing theories are regularly published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信