| Literature DB >> 28144833 |
Mary E Northridge1, Rucha Kavathe2, Jennifer Zanowiak3, Laura Wyatt3, Hardayal Singh2, Nadia Islam3.
Abstract
The Sikh American Families Oral Health Promotion Program used a community-based participatory approach to develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate a culturally tailored oral health/healthy living curriculum for the Sikh-South Asian community. Here, we examine the impact of community engagement throughout the process of program implementation in five Gurdwaras (places of worship) in New York and New Jersey and dissemination of the findings through targeted venues and the curriculum via e-Health resources. An interactive curriculum was developed (consisting of four core and three special topics) based upon a community-led needs assessment, adaptation of evidence-based oral health curricula, guidance from professional dental and medical associations, and input from Community Advisory Board (CAB) members. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided a mixed-method evaluation, consisting of both process and outcome measures. Five trained community educators delivered a total of 42 educational sessions. Improved oral hygiene behaviors and self-efficacy were found among program participants. For participants with no dental insurance prior to program enrollment (n = 58), 81.0% credited the program with helping them obtain insurance for themselves or their children. Further, for participants with no dentist prior to program enrollment (n = 68), 92.6% credited the program with helping them or their children find a local dentist. Short videos in Punjabi were created in response to feedback received from community educators and CAB members to reach men, especially. Community engagement was key to successful program implementation and dissemination, from the implementation leaders (community educators) to the opinion leaders and champions (CAB members).Entities:
Keywords: Asian American health; Community educators; Community-based participatory research; Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; Implementation science; Oral health equity
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28144833 PMCID: PMC5645275 DOI: 10.1007/s13142-017-0466-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Behav Med ISSN: 1613-9860 Impact factor: 3.046
Fig. 1The five major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: the intervention, the inner setting, the outer setting, the individuals involved, and the process by which implementation is accomplished. Adapted from [23]. First appeared in [25]. Printed with permission
Fig. 2A dental hygiene faculty member demonstrates proper tooth brushing with fluoride toothpaste technique to a Sikh community educator using a model
Frequency of self-reported behaviors and self-efficacy regarding health-related activities for participants in the Sikh American Families Oral Health Promotion Program when asked to think back to the time prior to attending the first workshop and at the present time after having attended the workshops (n = 126)
| Prior to beginning the program (attending the first workshop) | At the present time (after having attended the workshops) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| % ( | % ( | ||
| Percent endorsing the desired oral health promotion behavior | |||
| Brushes teeth more than once a day for at least 2 min | 12.8 (16) | 69.0 (87) | <0.001 |
| Flosses at least once a day | 7.9 (10) | 42.0 (53) | <0.001 |
| Percent endorsing the very confident option | |||
| Feels that knows how to take good care of mouth, teeth, and gums | 0 | 57.3 (71) | <0.001 |
| Feels that are able to take good care of mouth, teeth, and gums | 3.2 (4) | 72.4 (89) | <0.001 |
| Feels that are able to eat a healthy diet | 4.8 (6) | 65.0 (80) | <0.001 |
| Feels that are able to be physically active for 150 min/week | 6.3 (8) | 66.4 (83) | <0.001 |
| Feels able to ask dentist or oral hygienist questions | 4.8 (6) | 61.6 (77) | <0.001 |
Denominators may differ due to missing values
a P values correspond to the testing of differences between prior and present-time endorsements using the Chi-square test
Self-reported satisfaction with and assessment of the Sikh American Families Oral Health Promotion Program among participants 1 month after having attended the workshops (n = 126)
| Program component | Percent |
|---|---|
| Percent who strongly agreed or agreed with the following statements | |
| The community health educator(s) answered my concerns and questions | 100 (126/126) |
| The community health educator(s) helped me to improve how I take care of my health | 100 (126/126) |
| The information and topics presented in the workshops were informative | 100 (126/126) |
| The in-person demonstrations of how to brush and floss properly helped me to improve my oral health | 100 (125/125) |
| The videos and tutorials available online helped me to improve my oral health (full intervention only) | 98.5 (67/68) |
| The program helped me to eat a more healthy diet | 100 (126/126) |
| The program helped me to increase my level of physical activity each week | 98.4 (124/126) |
| Percent who affirmed the following oral healthcare characteristics | |
| Had dental insurance before program enrollment | 53.6 (67/125) |
| Program helped to get dental insurance for self or children among those with no dental insurance | 81.0 (47/58) |
| Had a dentist before program enrollment | 45.6 (57/125) |
| Program helped to find a local dentist for self or children among those with no dentist | 92.6 (63/68) |
| Percent who endorsed the following barriers to participating in workshops or other program activities | |
| Did not have transportation to sessions | 10.3 (13/126) |
| Family obligations | 30.2 (38/126) |
| Lack of child care | 15.9 (20/126) |
| Work schedule conflicted with the sessions | 19.0 (24/126) |
| Lack of interest | 11.9 (15/126) |
| Session location was not convenient for me | 2.4 (3/126) |
| Travel to home country conflicted with sessions | 0.8 (1/126) |
| Percent who endorsed the following program satisfaction and sustainability items | |
| Self-reported being very satisfied or higher with the program (≥8 on a scale of 0–10) | 95.0 (115/121) |
| Self-reported willingness to serve as a volunteer for the program in the future | 52.3 (57/109) |
| Felt that the variety of workshop topics was just right | 100 (122/122) |
| Felt that the length of time of each workshop was just right | 76.6 (93/122) |
| Percent who felt that the length of time between workshops should be | |
| 1 week | 30.7 (36/122) |
| 2 weeks | 67.7 (84/122) |
| 3 weeks | 1.6 (2/122) |
Denominators may differ due to missing values, questions that were asked in the full intervention only, or varying numbers of participants who were eligible to respond