Rita A Jablonski1,2, Ann M Kolanowski3, Andres Azuero1, Vicki Winstead1, Corteza Jones-Townsend4, Maria L Geisinger5. 1. School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 2. Memory Disorders Clinic, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. College of Nursing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. 4. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Birmingham, AL, USA. 5. School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of MOUTh (Managing Oral Hygiene Using Threat Reduction), a nonpharmacologic, relationship-based intervention vs. control on 2 primary outcomes for nursing home (NH) residents with dementia who resisted mouth care: (i) reduction in the occurrence and intensity of care-resistant behaviours (CRBs) and (ii) improvement in oral health. Two secondary outcomes were also examined: (i) the duration of mouth care and (ii) the completion of oral hygiene activities. BACKGROUND:Persons with dementia who exhibit CRBs are at risk for inadequate mouth care and subsequent systemic illnesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used a randomised repeated measures design. Recruitment occurred in 9 nursing homes that varied in size, ownership, reimbursement patterns and location. One hundred and one nursing home residents with dementia were randomised at the individual level to experimental (n = 55) or control groups (n = 46). One hundred participants provided data for the analyses. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, persons in the experimental group had twice the odds of allowing mouth care and completing oral hygiene activities; they also allowed longer duration of mouth care (d = 0.56), but showed only small reductions in the intensity of CRBs (d = 0.16) and small differential improvements in oral health (d = 0.18). CONCLUSION: The data suggest that this intervention facilitates mouth care among persons with dementia. The management of refusal behaviour may be a clinically more realistic approach than reducing or eradicating refusals.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of MOUTh (Managing Oral Hygiene Using Threat Reduction), a nonpharmacologic, relationship-based intervention vs. control on 2 primary outcomes for nursing home (NH) residents with dementia who resisted mouth care: (i) reduction in the occurrence and intensity of care-resistant behaviours (CRBs) and (ii) improvement in oral health. Two secondary outcomes were also examined: (i) the duration of mouth care and (ii) the completion of oral hygiene activities. BACKGROUND:Persons with dementia who exhibit CRBs are at risk for inadequate mouth care and subsequent systemic illnesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study used a randomised repeated measures design. Recruitment occurred in 9 nursing homes that varied in size, ownership, reimbursement patterns and location. One hundred and one nursing home residents with dementia were randomised at the individual level to experimental (n = 55) or control groups (n = 46). One hundred participants provided data for the analyses. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, persons in the experimental group had twice the odds of allowing mouth care and completing oral hygiene activities; they also allowed longer duration of mouth care (d = 0.56), but showed only small reductions in the intensity of CRBs (d = 0.16) and small differential improvements in oral health (d = 0.18). CONCLUSION: The data suggest that this intervention facilitates mouth care among persons with dementia. The management of refusal behaviour may be a clinically more realistic approach than reducing or eradicating refusals.
Authors: Claar D van der Maarel-Wierink; Jackie N O Vanobbergen; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Jos M G A Schols; Cees de Baat Journal: Gerodontology Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Rita A Jablonski; Ann Kolanowski; Barbara Therrien; Ellen K Mahoney; Cathy Kassab; Douglas L Leslie Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2011-11-19 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; Philip D Sloane; Kimberly Ward; Christopher J Wretman; Sally C Stearns; Patricia Poole; John S Preisser Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-06-01
Authors: Julia Jockusch; Siri Nitschke; Werner Hopfenmüller; Oliver Schierz; Sebastian Hahnel; Ina Nitschke Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jesus Gomez-Rossi; Jondis Schwartzkopff; Anne Müller; Katrin Hertrampf; Jens Abraham; Georg Gassmann; Peter Schlattmann; Gerd Göstemeyer; Falk Schwendicke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Bei Wu; Brenda L Plassman; Patricia Poole; Shahrzad Siamdoust; Melanie Bunn; Bobbi Burwell; Yaolin Pei; Christine Downey; Danni Gomes; Angela Kamer; Gary Yu; A Leak Bryant; Ruth A Anderson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 3.006