In response to headlines about the oral health of persons experiencing social exclusion resonating in highincome countries, and research demonstrating the need for urgent action, a symposium entitled 'International Perspectives on Socially Inclusive Dentistry: A Call to Action' was organized for the IADR International Meeting of 2018. The aim of the symposium was to initiate an international dialogue on barriers to care, multidisciplinary action, and examples of best practice for service delivery for people experiencing social exclusion; in other words, to develop the idea of inclusion oral health. Through our international exchange, what emerged was an awareness of a lack of professional consensus: What exactly is inclusion oral health? A theoretical framework to push forward the policy, research and practice agenda was clearly needed. This paper advances such a framework. Over the decades, dentistry has forged an approach to service delivery mainly through a business, demand-led model. While oral health continues to improve globally, an important consequence of this approach is that it compounds the social exclusion that many people are already experiencing because of a constellation of economic, political, cultural and individual factors. Thus, many people are simply not getting the dental care they need. In contrast, drawing on the theoretical literature on social exclusion, intersectionality and othering, we suggest that dentistry could act as an agent for social inclusion as a more responsive, all-encompassing form of oral health care and delivery. This paper advances a theoretical framework for inclusion oral health and an action plan to show how inclusion oral health may become one solution in an armamentarium to tackle the global phenomena of oral health inequities.
Introduction This paper is the second of four reviews exploring the relationships between oral health and general medical conditions, in order to support teams within Public Health England, health practitioners and policymakers.Aim This review aimed to explore the most contemporary evidence on whether poor oral health and pulmonary disease occurs in the same individuals or populations, to outline the nature of the relationship between these two health outcomes, and discuss the implication of any findings for health services and future research.Methods The work was undertaken by a group comprising consultant clinicians from medicine and dentistry, trainees, public health, and academics. The methodology involved a streamlined rapid review process and synthesis of the data.Results The results identified a number of systematic reviews of medium to high quality which provide evidence that oral health and oral hygiene habits have an impact on incidence and outcomes of lung diseases, such as pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in people living in the community and in long-term care facilities. The findings are discussed in relation to the implications for service and future research.Conclusion The cumulative evidence of this review suggests an association between oral and pulmonary disease, specifically COPD and pneumonia, and incidence of the latter can be reduced by oral hygiene measures such as chlorhexidine and povidone iodine in all patients, while toothbrushing reduces the incidence, duration, and mortality from pneumonia in community and hospital patients.
This paper is the second of two reviews that seek to stimulate debate on new and neglected avenues in oral health research. The first commissioned narrative review, “Inclusion oral health: Advancing a theoretical framework for policy, research and practice”, published in February 2020, explored social exclusion, othering and intersectionality. In it, we argued that people who experience social exclusion face a “triple threat”: they are separated from mainstream society, stigmatized by the dental profession, and severed from wider health and social care systems because of the disconnection between oral health and general health. We proposed a definition of inclusion oral health and a theoretical framework to advance the policy, research and practice agenda. This second review delves further into the concept of intersectionality, arguing that individuals who are socially excluded experience multiple forms of discrimination, stigma and disadvantage that reflect intersecting social identities. We first provide a theoretical and historical overview of intersectionality, rooted in Black feminist ideologies in the United States. Our working definition of intersectionality, requiring the simultaneous appreciation of multiple social identities, an examination of power and inequality, and a recognition of changing social contexts, then sets the scene for examining existing applications of intersectionality in oral health research. A critique of the sparse application of intersectionality in oral health research highlights missed opportunities and shortcomings related to paradigmatic and epistemological differences, a lack of robust theoretically engaged quantitative and mixed methods research, and a failure to sufficiently consider power from an intersectionality perspective. The final section proposes a framework to guide future oral health research that embraces an intersectionality agenda consisting of descriptive research to deepen our understanding of intersectionality, and transformative research to tackle social injustice and inequities through participatory research and co‐production.
People living with HIV (PLHIV) continue to endure stigma and discrimination in the context of health care despite global improvements in health outcomes. HIV stigma persists within healthcare settings, including dental settings, manifesting itself in myriad, intersecting ways, and has been shown to be damaging in the healthcare setting. Stigmatising practices may include excessive personal protective equipment, delaying the provision of care or unnecessary referral of PLHIV to specialist services in order to access care. The workshop entitled “HIV and Stigma in the Healthcare Setting” provided an overview of the concept and manifestation of HIV stigma and explored the disproportionate burden it places on groups that face additional disadvantages in accessing care. The final part of the workshop concluded with a review of institutional and community‐based interventions that worked to reduce HIV stigma and group discussion of the ways in which these strategies might be adapted to the dental workforce.
Over 95% of the 85,000 people living with diagnosed HIV in the UK are achieving and maintaining an undetectable viral load whilst on effective antiretroviral therapy-they can expect a normal life span and are protected from transmitting HIV. Nevertheless people living with HIV reported high rates of stigma and discrimination when attending their dental practice in the previous 12 months. These findings are a wakeup call to the dental team to ensure that care is delivered without discrimination and prejudice. Greater awareness and training is required to ensure the dental team provides optimal care to people living with HIV in a supportive environment.
This paper is the third in a series of narrative reviews challenging core concepts in oral health research and practice. Our series started with a framework for Inclusion Oral Health. Our second review explored one component of this framework, looking at how intersectionality adds important complexity to oral public health. This current manuscript drills into a second component of Inclusion Oral Health, exploring how labels can lead to ‘othering’ thereby misrepresenting populations and (re)producing harms. Specifically, we address a common oral public health label: vulnerable populations. This term is commonly used descriptively: an adjective (vulnerable) is used to modify a noun (population). What this descriptor conceals is the ‘how,’ ‘why,’ and ‘therefore’ that leads to and from vulnerability: How and why is a population made vulnerable; to what are they vulnerable; what makes them ‘at risk,’ and to what are they ‘at risk’? In concealing these questions, we argue our conventional approach unwittingly does harm. Vulnerability is a term that implies a population has inherent characteristics that make them vulnerable; further, it casts populations as discrete, homogenous entities, thereby misrepresenting the complexities that people live. In so doing, this label can eclipse the strengths, agency and power of individuals and populations to care for themselves and each other. Regarding oral public health, the convention of vulnerability averts our research gaze away from social processes that produce vulnerability to instead focus on the downstream product, the vulnerable population. This paper theorizes vulnerability for oral public health, critically engaging its production and reproduction. Drawing from critical public health literature and disability studies, we advance a critique of vulnerability to make explicit hidden assumptions and their harmful outcomes. We propose solutions for research and practice, including co‐engagement and co‐production with peoples who have been vulnerabilized. In so doing, this paper moves forward the potential for oral public health to advance research and practice that engages complexity in our work with vulnerabilized populations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.