Kara A Gray-Burrows, Sarab El-Yousfi, Kristian Hudson, Samantha Watt, Ellen Lloyd, Hanin El Shuwihdi, Tom Broomhead, Peter F Day, Zoe Marshman
{"title":"Supervised Toothbrushing Programmes: Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation.","authors":"Kara A Gray-Burrows, Sarab El-Yousfi, Kristian Hudson, Samantha Watt, Ellen Lloyd, Hanin El Shuwihdi, Tom Broomhead, Peter F Day, Zoe Marshman","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.13026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Supervised toothbrushing programmes (STPs), whereby children brush their teeth at nursery or school with a fluoride toothpaste under staff supervision, are a clinically and cost-effective intervention to reduce dental caries. However, uptake is varied, and the reasons unknown. The aim was to use an implementation science approach to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders on the barriers and facilitators at each level of implementation of STPs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study involved individual interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of stakeholders involved at all levels of implementation of STPs: (1) policymakers; (2) providers of STPs; (3) nursery/school staff; (4) parents/carers; and (5) children (aged 2-6 years old) across England. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 159 stakeholders were interviewed (40 individual interviews and 17 focus groups) across all levels of implementation. Barriers and facilitators to STP implementation were identified across 35 of the 39 CFIR constructs. Four themes were identified that determined STP implementation: (1) acceptability of STPs; (2) external 'make or break' conditions; (3) the importance of engagement across the system; and (4) desire for centralised support.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study to qualitatively explore the barriers and facilitators to STP at all levels of implementation underpinned by an implementation science framework. The findings have strong implications for policymakers who wish to implement STPs, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the adaptability of the programmes, the role of formal and informal engagement systems, and the need for centralised support. This work has facilitated the co-design and piloting of a supervised toothbrushing implementation toolkit, which provides a central hub of resources and good practice to optimise implementation of STPs at scale.</p>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","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://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.13026","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
Objectives: Supervised toothbrushing programmes (STPs), whereby children brush their teeth at nursery or school with a fluoride toothpaste under staff supervision, are a clinically and cost-effective intervention to reduce dental caries. However, uptake is varied, and the reasons unknown. The aim was to use an implementation science approach to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders on the barriers and facilitators at each level of implementation of STPs.
Methods: This qualitative study involved individual interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of stakeholders involved at all levels of implementation of STPs: (1) policymakers; (2) providers of STPs; (3) nursery/school staff; (4) parents/carers; and (5) children (aged 2-6 years old) across England. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
Results: A total of 159 stakeholders were interviewed (40 individual interviews and 17 focus groups) across all levels of implementation. Barriers and facilitators to STP implementation were identified across 35 of the 39 CFIR constructs. Four themes were identified that determined STP implementation: (1) acceptability of STPs; (2) external 'make or break' conditions; (3) the importance of engagement across the system; and (4) desire for centralised support.
Conclusions: This is the first study to qualitatively explore the barriers and facilitators to STP at all levels of implementation underpinned by an implementation science framework. The findings have strong implications for policymakers who wish to implement STPs, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the adaptability of the programmes, the role of formal and informal engagement systems, and the need for centralised support. This work has facilitated the co-design and piloting of a supervised toothbrushing implementation toolkit, which provides a central hub of resources and good practice to optimise implementation of STPs at scale.
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.