| Literature DB >> 36225421 |
Shristy Sharma1, Vikrant Mohanty1, Aswini Y Balappanavar1, Puneet Chahar1, Kavita Rijhwani1.
Abstract
Oral disease has affected almost half of the world's population, causing an enormous economic burden. To overcome this huge problem, oral health promotion is one of the most cost-effective methods. Digital media can play a pivotal role in achieving the goal of reducing this burden by providing a wider platform to reach out to the population even in the areas of deficit oral health care service. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of digital media in oral health promotion. The combinations of terms in the following two broad categories were used to search the literature on PubMed, Cochrane Library articles, WHO guidelines on oral health promotion through digital media, and Google Scholar: Intervention (digital media, Mobile phones, Text messages, social media, Cell phones, MHealth application, Telemedicine, Television, Videos) and Outcome (Oral Health education, Oral health, Oral health promotion, Oral health literacy, Oral health knowledge, Oral health attitude, Oral health practice, Oral hygiene improvement). The review was conducted in two phases, using the standardized checklist applicable to studies. Initially, abstracts were retrieved, followed by the assessment of the full papers against the review criteria. Among the selected studies, digital interventions helped in providing continuity of care and services in seven studies, eight addressed the increase in knowledge, attitude, and practice, and all the studies analyzed oral health needs. The findings concluded that digital media-based interventions can enhance oral health literacy and help in tackling this problem among different age groups.Entities:
Keywords: dental education; digital media; oral health; oral health care; pediatric preventive dentistry; promoting oral health; dental caries
Year: 2022 PMID: 36225421 PMCID: PMC9543101 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Study Flowchart
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
MINUS/NEGATIVE (-): If most (six or more) of the answers to the above validity questions are “No,” the report should be designated with a minus (-) symbol on the Evidence worksheet.
NEUTRAL (∅): If the answers to validity criteria questions 2, 3, 6, and 7 do not indicate that the study is exceptionally strong, the report should be designated with a neutral (∅) symbol on the Evidence worksheet.
PLUS/POSITIVE (+): If most of the answers to the above validity questions are “Yes” (including criteria 2, 3, 6, 7, and at least one additional “Yes”), the report should be designated with a plus symbol (+) on the Evidence worksheet.
|
| Reference Study | Quality Assessment |
| 1. | Scheerman JFM, et al 2019 [ | Positive |
| 2. | Al Bardaweel S, et al 2018 [ | Positive |
| 3. | Gholami et al 2017 [ | Neutral |
| 4. | Zotti F et al 2016 [ | Neutral |
| 5. | Makvandi Z et al 2015 [ | Neutral |
| 6. | Harish C Jadhav et al 2015 [ | Neutral |
| 7. | Bankhole Olubunmi, 2013 [ | Neutral |
| 8. | Fatemeh Mohamadkhah et al 2013 [ | Neutral |
| 9. | Mcnab M, Skapetis et al 2016 [ | Negative |
Amstar 2 Checklist
High • No or one non-critical weakness
Moderate • More than one non-critical weakness
Low • One critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses
Critically low • More than one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses
| S. No. | Reference Study | Rating Overall Confidence in the Results of the Review |
| 1. | Toniazzo MP et al. 2019 [ | High |
| 2. | Caroline Free et a.l 2015 [ | High |
Figure 2Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool
'+' High Risk of Bias
'-' Low Risk of Bias
'?' Unclear Risk of Bias
Harish C Jadhav et al. 2016 [21], Mcnab M et al. 2016 [24], Al Bardaweel S et al. 2018 [28], Makvandi Z et al. 2015 [17], Fatemeh Mohamadkhah et al. 2013 [19], Bankhole Olubunmi et al. 2013 [27], Zotti F et al. 2016 [22], Gholami et al. 2017 [18], Scheerman JFM et al. 2019 [23]
Increase in Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP)
| S. No | Year | Reference Study | Result/Increase KAP |
| 1 | 2019 | Scheerman JFM et al. [ | 20.08-22.50% |
| 2 | 2017 | Gholami et al. [ | 0.29-0.61 |
| 3 | 2016 | McNab M et al. [ | 57.5-78.25 |
| 4 | 2015 | Makvandi Z et al. [ | [K- 4.80-6.20], [A- 77.62-95], [P- 58.29-83.35] |
| 5 | 2013 | Mohamadkhah F et al. [ | [K- 1.93-2], [A- 1.86-2.05], [P- 2.02-2.07] |
Increase in Continuity of Care and Services
| S. No | Year | Reference Study |
| 1. | 2019 | Toniazzo MP et al. [ |
| 2. | 2018 | Abhinav Bassi et al. [ |
| 3. | 2016 | McNab M et al. [ |
| 4. | 2015 | Harish C Jadhav et al. [ |
| 5. | 2015 | Makvandi Z et al. [ |
| 6. | 2015 | Free C et al. [ |
Summary of the Studies Included in This Review
K - Knowledge
A - Attitude
P - Practice
OHI - Oral Hygiene Index
GI - Gingival Index
OHIS - Oral Hygiene Index Simplified
| S. No | Author | Country/ Study Design | Study Sample | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome |
| 1 | Scheerman JFM et al. 2019 [ | Netherland/ RCT | 132 Adults Undergoing Orthodontic t/t | White Teeth App | Usual Care | Decrease plaque, gingivitis, fluoride use, KAP 20.08%-22.50% |
| 2 | Al Bardaweel S et al. 2018 [ | Syria/ RCT | 220 1o School Children | e- Learning | Leaflet Learning | KAP leaflet (54.94 to 89.12) e-learning (55.50 to 74.66) |
| 3 | Gholami et al. 2017 [ | Iran/ RCT | 543 Adults age 18-50 yrs. | Animated clips on oral health on national TV for 10 days | Before Intervention | KAP 0.29 to 0.61 |
| 4 | Zotti F et al. 2016 [ | Italy/ RCT | 80 Adolescents Orthodontic t/t | Whatsapp Messages | Usual Instruction | Improving oral hygiene compliance. Decrease in PI- SG 0.41 TO 1.06, CG 0.48 TO 1.79. |
| 5 | Makvandi Z et al. 2015 [ | Iran/ RCT | 90 Mothers of 1-2 yrs Old Children | Whatsapp Messages | No Information | K 4.80 TO 6.20, A 77.62 TO 95, P 58.29 TO 83.35 |
| 6 | Harish C Jadhav et al. 2015 [ | India/ RCT | 400 College Students | SMS | No Information | Mean OHI (3.79 to 2.88) GI (0.31 TO 0.16) study group |
| 7 | Bankhole Olubunmi et al. 2013 [ | Nigeria/ RCT | Primary School Children | Educational Video | Verbal Dental Health Education & No Information in Control | Decrease of OHIS score video group 28.6%, verbal group 23.4%, control group 14.1% |
| 8 | Fatemeh Mohamadkhah et al. 2013 [ | Iran/ Quasi Experimental | 300 (10-12 yrs. old) Girls | Films/ Lectures | No Information | K (1.93 TO 2) A (1.86 TO 2.05) P (2.07 to 2.02) |
| 9 | Mcnab M, Skapetis et al. 2016 [ | Sydney/Non- Randomized Trial | 253 General Population | Oral Health Educational Video | Before Intervention | Decrease sugar consumption, KAP (57.5% to 78.2%) |
| 10 | Toniazzo MP et al. 2019 [ | Brazil/ Systematic Review | 1402 Adults, mothers of young children, Adolescents | Mobile Application (app) and SMS | Usual Oral Hygiene Instruction | Decrease plaque and gingivitis |
| 11 | Caroline Free et al. 2015 [ | London/ Systematic Review | Health Care Consumers | Mobile App | Face-to-Face Counseling | More cases of self-reporting, improvement in disease management |
| 12 | Abhinav Bassi et al. 2018 [ | India/Systematic Review | Health Care Consumers | Mobile-Based Health Intervention (Telemedicine/MHealth) | No Digital Intervention | Improvement in education level and positive behavior change |