Hormoz Sanaei Nasab1, Mohsen Yazdanian2, Yaser Mokhayeri3, Marzieh Latifi4, Negin Niksadat5,6, Javad Harooni7, Bahram Armoon1,8. 1. Health Research Center, Life Style Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Research Center for Prevention of Oral and Dental Diseases, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. School of Public Health, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran. 4. Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Student Research Committee, Tehran, Iran. 7. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran. 8. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Saveh University of Medical Sciences, Saveh, Iran.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we attempted to assess how psychological theories (health belief model [HBM], theory of planned behaviour [TPB], social cognitive theory [SCT], clinical theories [CT] and other theories [OT]) influence oral health interventions. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Knowledge databases from 2000 to 2017 were searched. We defined psychological theories based on five subgroups: (A) HBM, (B) TPB, (C) SCT, (E) CT and (F) OT. RESULTS: From the 156 identified studies, 19 studies based on PICO were included. Our findings indicated that the standardized mean difference (SMD) of HBM was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.51), which was statistically significant in improving oral health. The SMD of SCT was not significant (0.05 [95% CI: -0.33, 0.44]) in improving oral health. The SMD of TPB was significant (1.66 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.27]) in improving oral health. The SMD of CT (-4.6 [95% CI: -6.49, -2.71]) and OT (2.93 [95% CI: 1.55, 4.32]) revealed significant differences in improving oral health. CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis showed that in general, psychological interventions that used OT, CT, HBM and TPB were effective in enhancing oral health status, and interventions that used SCT did not have an effect on improving oral health status. Oral health care providers who work with patients to take methods and improve behaviours that are related to appropriate oral health need to comprehend their applicability and strengths.
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we attempted to assess how psychological theories (health belief model [HBM], theory of planned behaviour [TPB], social cognitive theory [SCT], clinical theories [CT] and other theories [OT]) influence oral health interventions. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Knowledge databases from 2000 to 2017 were searched. We defined psychological theories based on five subgroups: (A) HBM, (B) TPB, (C) SCT, (E) CT and (F) OT. RESULTS: From the 156 identified studies, 19 studies based on PICO were included. Our findings indicated that the standardized mean difference (SMD) of HBM was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.51), which was statistically significant in improving oral health. The SMD of SCT was not significant (0.05 [95% CI: -0.33, 0.44]) in improving oral health. The SMD of TPB was significant (1.66 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.27]) in improving oral health. The SMD of CT (-4.6 [95% CI: -6.49, -2.71]) and OT (2.93 [95% CI: 1.55, 4.32]) revealed significant differences in improving oral health. CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis showed that in general, psychological interventions that used OT, CT, HBM and TPB were effective in enhancing oral health status, and interventions that used SCT did not have an effect on improving oral health status. Oral health care providers who work with patients to take methods and improve behaviours that are related to appropriate oral health need to comprehend their applicability and strengths.
Authors: Ketian Wang; Gillian Hiu Man Lee; Pei Liu; Xiaoli Gao; Samuel Yeung Shan Wong; May Chun Mei Wong Journal: Trials Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jean Schensul; Susan Reisine; Apoorva Salvi; Toan Ha; James Grady; Jianghong Li Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 2.757