在不同的COVID-19时期,在美国各地的早期护理教育环境中实施口腔健康循证实践。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-08-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0323396
Phoebe P Tchoua, Shreena Patel, Aviva Shira Starr, Richard Rairigh, Falon Smith, Erik A Willis
{"title":"在不同的COVID-19时期,在美国各地的早期护理教育环境中实施口腔健康循证实践。","authors":"Phoebe P Tchoua, Shreena Patel, Aviva Shira Starr, Richard Rairigh, Falon Smith, Erik A Willis","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0323396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted oral health practices in early care education (ECE) centers. This study describes the implementation of oral health evidence-based practices (EBP) in ECE centers enrolled in the web-based Go NAPSACC program pre-, during-, and post-COVID-19 stay-at-home (SAH) orders. This repeated cross-sectional study analyzed retroactive data from three types of programs (n = 1,490), that participated in Go NAPSACC oral health modules between January 2017 and April 2024: Head Start (n = 154), family child care home (FCCH; n = 540), and center-based (n = 796). Programs that did not use the Oral Health module (n = 10,425) and had duplicate registrations (n = 91) were excluded. The analysis focused on EBP total score and percentage of EBP met scores. We found significant differences in oral health EBP total and EBP met scores between program type (p < 0.001). Head Start programs had statistically significant higher EBP total percentage scores (81.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.5, 85.2; p < 0.0001) than FCCH programs (69.5, 95% CI = 67.1, 71.8; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (59.5, 95% CI = 57.3, 61.7). Similarly, Head Start programs had higher EBP met scores (62.0, 95% CI = 57.7, 66.3; p < 0.0001), than FCCH programs (49.7, 95% CI = 46.7, 52.7; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (36.9, 95% CI = 34.1, 39.8). We observed no statistically significant differences among programs based on SAH order period for neither EBP total scores (period, p = 0.761; interaction between program type and period, p = 0.788) nor EBP met scores (period, p = 0.178; interaction between program type and SAH order period, p = 0.293). These findings suggest that ECE programs struggle to meet oral health EBP across the three study periods, and the observed differences across program type was not explained by SAH orders.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 8","pages":"e0323396"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12360538/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of oral health evidence-based practices in early care education settings across the U.S. during different COVID-19 periods.\",\"authors\":\"Phoebe P Tchoua, Shreena Patel, Aviva Shira Starr, Richard Rairigh, Falon Smith, Erik A Willis\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0323396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted oral health practices in early care education (ECE) centers. This study describes the implementation of oral health evidence-based practices (EBP) in ECE centers enrolled in the web-based Go NAPSACC program pre-, during-, and post-COVID-19 stay-at-home (SAH) orders. This repeated cross-sectional study analyzed retroactive data from three types of programs (n = 1,490), that participated in Go NAPSACC oral health modules between January 2017 and April 2024: Head Start (n = 154), family child care home (FCCH; n = 540), and center-based (n = 796). Programs that did not use the Oral Health module (n = 10,425) and had duplicate registrations (n = 91) were excluded. The analysis focused on EBP total score and percentage of EBP met scores. We found significant differences in oral health EBP total and EBP met scores between program type (p < 0.001). Head Start programs had statistically significant higher EBP total percentage scores (81.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.5, 85.2; p < 0.0001) than FCCH programs (69.5, 95% CI = 67.1, 71.8; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (59.5, 95% CI = 57.3, 61.7). Similarly, Head Start programs had higher EBP met scores (62.0, 95% CI = 57.7, 66.3; p < 0.0001), than FCCH programs (49.7, 95% CI = 46.7, 52.7; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (36.9, 95% CI = 34.1, 39.8). We observed no statistically significant differences among programs based on SAH order period for neither EBP total scores (period, p = 0.761; interaction between program type and period, p = 0.788) nor EBP met scores (period, p = 0.178; interaction between program type and SAH order period, p = 0.293). These findings suggest that ECE programs struggle to meet oral health EBP across the three study periods, and the observed differences across program type was not explained by SAH orders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 8\",\"pages\":\"e0323396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12360538/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323396\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323396","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

COVID-19大流行扰乱了早期护理教育中心的口腔卫生实践。本研究描述了在参加基于web的Go NAPSACC计划的ECE中心实施的口腔健康循证实践(EBP),这些中心在covid -19居家令(SAH)之前、期间和之后都参加了该计划。这项重复的横断面研究分析了2017年1月至2024年4月期间参加Go NAPSACC口腔健康模块的三种类型项目(n = 1490)的回顾性数据:启蒙班(n = 154)、家庭托儿之家(FCCH; n = 540)和中心(n = 796)。未使用口腔健康模块(n = 10,425)和有重复注册(n = 91)的项目被排除。分析的重点是EBP总分和EBP达标百分比。我们发现不同项目类型在口腔健康EBP总分和EBP满足评分上存在显著差异(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Implementation of oral health evidence-based practices in early care education settings across the U.S. during different COVID-19 periods.

Implementation of oral health evidence-based practices in early care education settings across the U.S. during different COVID-19 periods.

Implementation of oral health evidence-based practices in early care education settings across the U.S. during different COVID-19 periods.

Implementation of oral health evidence-based practices in early care education settings across the U.S. during different COVID-19 periods.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted oral health practices in early care education (ECE) centers. This study describes the implementation of oral health evidence-based practices (EBP) in ECE centers enrolled in the web-based Go NAPSACC program pre-, during-, and post-COVID-19 stay-at-home (SAH) orders. This repeated cross-sectional study analyzed retroactive data from three types of programs (n = 1,490), that participated in Go NAPSACC oral health modules between January 2017 and April 2024: Head Start (n = 154), family child care home (FCCH; n = 540), and center-based (n = 796). Programs that did not use the Oral Health module (n = 10,425) and had duplicate registrations (n = 91) were excluded. The analysis focused on EBP total score and percentage of EBP met scores. We found significant differences in oral health EBP total and EBP met scores between program type (p < 0.001). Head Start programs had statistically significant higher EBP total percentage scores (81.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.5, 85.2; p < 0.0001) than FCCH programs (69.5, 95% CI = 67.1, 71.8; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (59.5, 95% CI = 57.3, 61.7). Similarly, Head Start programs had higher EBP met scores (62.0, 95% CI = 57.7, 66.3; p < 0.0001), than FCCH programs (49.7, 95% CI = 46.7, 52.7; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (36.9, 95% CI = 34.1, 39.8). We observed no statistically significant differences among programs based on SAH order period for neither EBP total scores (period, p = 0.761; interaction between program type and period, p = 0.788) nor EBP met scores (period, p = 0.178; interaction between program type and SAH order period, p = 0.293). These findings suggest that ECE programs struggle to meet oral health EBP across the three study periods, and the observed differences across program type was not explained by SAH orders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信