Comparison of facilitators and barriers to providing oral hygiene measures in dependent older people and young children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to systematically compare barriers/facilitators providing oral hygiene to young children and dependent older people and to generate ideas to improve the implementation of oral hygiene measures. BACKGROUND: Many older people, like children, rely on third-party assistance for teeth cleaning. Barriers/facilitators in providing oral care services have been described in recent works. The aim of our study was to compare these results for both groups and to increase knowledge on analogies/differences in barriers/intermediaries. METHODS: We performed a systematic review. Studies reporting on knowledge, attitudes and beliefs acting as barriers/facilitators for provision of teeth cleaning were included. Thematic analysis was used and identified themes translated to domains and constructs of the theoretical domains framework and aligned to the behaviour change wheel. Based on three published reviews in children or older people, our search (PubMed via Medline), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science, Google Scholar, last search (21 January 2023) encompassed both populations dated from their last publication (28 February 2018). The review was registered (Prospero, CRD42021278944). For quality assessment, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were identified (older people (n = 8), children (n = 9)). Deficits exist for both in terms of "knowledge/skills" among caregivers, with special difficulties in children with challenging behaviour and older people. "Capability" as one of the main elements of behavioural factors that are the basis for behaviour to take place (COM-B, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) is most often mentioned for children and "opportunity" for older people. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the facilitators and barriers affecting oral care provision in children are also relevant in older people. Approaches for the development of strategies for better implementation of oral hygiene measures in older people are presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".