School-based oral health education increases caries inequalities

Integration of oral health promotion in primary school health programs: A scoping review

“…Twenty four studies primarily focused on investigating or comparing outcomes, including program feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, impact, and evaluation [ 52 , 53 , 56 – 62 , 64 – 68 , 70 – 76 , 79 – 81 ]. Remaining examined program efficiency and sustainability [ 82 ]; program contents (topics covered) and components or activities implemented [ 77 , 80 ]; methodology and methods [ 75 , 80 ], intervention framework [ 52 ], and program implementation as well as challenges [ 71 ] – either independently or in addition to outcomes assessment.…”

“…Study design was reported in 21 studies [ Table 1 ], and included randomized controlled trials [ 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 74 , 81 ]; cross‐sectional [ 52 , 55 , 64 , 77 ]; longitudinal cohort [ 53 , 67 , 72 , 75 ]; non-randomized [ 62 , 84 ]; pre-post interventional [ 68 , 70 , 73 ]; evaluation [ 66 ]; and ecological studies [ 56 ]. Remaining 10 studies did not mention study design, although one was qualitative [ 76 ] and four employed mixed-methods [ 61 , 63 , 82 , 83 ].…”

“…Primary school children constituted the program population receiving intervention in all studies. Close to half the studies [n = 15] reported children’s age [ 53 , 57 – 59 , 61 , 62 , 65 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 80 , 81 , 84 ]. ranging from 3 to 13 years.…”

“…Twelve studies reported parents, guardians, or caregivers as the program population [ 52 – 54 , 57 , 59 , 63 , 66 , 71 , 79 , 82 , 84 , 85 ] receiving intervention through receipt of educational materials, social support, school policy or program updates, and meal preparation guidance; supervising children’s hygiene behaviours and meal planning; and participation in meetings, committees, or policy consultations. Mean age of parents was reported in only one study as 36.9 ± 8.5 years [ 59 ].…”

“…Studies also reported engaging dieticians, nutritionists, or school meal advisors [ 53 , 57 , 63 , 64 ]; dental professionals [ 53 , 55 , 63 , 64 , 80 ]; physicians and medical experts [ 64 , 70 ]; dentistry and nutrition students [ 61 ]; allied health professionals [ 57 , 63 , 64 ]; local wholesalers, suppliers, provider of milk, fruits, and vegetables [ 57 , 84 ]; non-government or community organizations, community practitioners, volunteers, social workers, and community [ 53 – 57 , 71 , 82 , 83 , 86 ]; project staff or researchers [ 52 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 68 , 73 ];as well as government [ 69 , 71 , 82 , 85 ] and private sector [ 82 ] in intervention planning, design, delivery, monitoring, supervision, partnerships, mobilization, and providing program, policy, or partnership support.…”

Integration of oral health promotion in primary school health programs: A scoping review

“…Twenty four studies primarily focused on investigating or comparing outcomes, including program feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, impact, and evaluation [ 52 , 53 , 56 – 62 , 64 – 68 , 70 – 76 , 79 – 81 ]. Remaining examined program efficiency and sustainability [ 82 ]; program contents (topics covered) and components or activities implemented [ 77 , 80 ]; methodology and methods [ 75 , 80 ], intervention framework [ 52 ], and program implementation as well as challenges [ 71 ] – either independently or in addition to outcomes assessment.…”

“…Study design was reported in 21 studies [ Table 1 ], and included randomized controlled trials [ 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 74 , 81 ]; cross‐sectional [ 52 , 55 , 64 , 77 ]; longitudinal cohort [ 53 , 67 , 72 , 75 ]; non-randomized [ 62 , 84 ]; pre-post interventional [ 68 , 70 , 73 ]; evaluation [ 66 ]; and ecological studies [ 56 ]. Remaining 10 studies did not mention study design, although one was qualitative [ 76 ] and four employed mixed-methods [ 61 , 63 , 82 , 83 ].…”

“…Primary school children constituted the program population receiving intervention in all studies. Close to half the studies [n = 15] reported children’s age [ 53 , 57 – 59 , 61 , 62 , 65 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 80 , 81 , 84 ]. ranging from 3 to 13 years.…”

“…Twelve studies reported parents, guardians, or caregivers as the program population [ 52 – 54 , 57 , 59 , 63 , 66 , 71 , 79 , 82 , 84 , 85 ] receiving intervention through receipt of educational materials, social support, school policy or program updates, and meal preparation guidance; supervising children’s hygiene behaviours and meal planning; and participation in meetings, committees, or policy consultations. Mean age of parents was reported in only one study as 36.9 ± 8.5 years [ 59 ].…”

“…Studies also reported engaging dieticians, nutritionists, or school meal advisors [ 53 , 57 , 63 , 64 ]; dental professionals [ 53 , 55 , 63 , 64 , 80 ]; physicians and medical experts [ 64 , 70 ]; dentistry and nutrition students [ 61 ]; allied health professionals [ 57 , 63 , 64 ]; local wholesalers, suppliers, provider of milk, fruits, and vegetables [ 57 , 84 ]; non-government or community organizations, community practitioners, volunteers, social workers, and community [ 53 – 57 , 71 , 82 , 83 , 86 ]; project staff or researchers [ 52 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 68 , 73 ];as well as government [ 69 , 71 , 82 , 85 ] and private sector [ 82 ] in intervention planning, design, delivery, monitoring, supervision, partnerships, mobilization, and providing program, policy, or partnership support.…”

Integration of oral health promotion in primary school health programs: A scoping review

“…Twenty four studies primarily focused on investigating or comparing outcomes, including program feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, impact, and evaluation [ 52 , 53 , 56 – 62 , 64 – 68 , 70 – 76 , 79 – 81 ]. Remaining examined program efficiency and sustainability [ 82 ]; program contents (topics covered) and components or activities implemented [ 77 , 80 ]; methodology and methods [ 75 , 80 ], intervention framework [ 52 ], and program implementation as well as challenges [ 71 ] – either independently or in addition to outcomes assessment.…”

“…Study design was reported in 21 studies [ Table 1 ], and included randomized controlled trials [ 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 74 , 81 ]; cross‐sectional [ 52 , 55 , 64 , 77 ]; longitudinal cohort [ 53 , 67 , 72 , 75 ]; non-randomized [ 62 , 84 ]; pre-post interventional [ 68 , 70 , 73 ]; evaluation [ 66 ]; and ecological studies [ 56 ]. Remaining 10 studies did not mention study design, although one was qualitative [ 76 ] and four employed mixed-methods [ 61 , 63 , 82 , 83 ].…”

“…Primary school children constituted the program population receiving intervention in all studies. Close to half the studies [n = 15] reported children’s age [ 53 , 57 – 59 , 61 , 62 , 65 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 80 , 81 , 84 ]. ranging from 3 to 13 years.…”

“…Twelve studies reported parents, guardians, or caregivers as the program population [ 52 – 54 , 57 , 59 , 63 , 66 , 71 , 79 , 82 , 84 , 85 ] receiving intervention through receipt of educational materials, social support, school policy or program updates, and meal preparation guidance; supervising children’s hygiene behaviours and meal planning; and participation in meetings, committees, or policy consultations. Mean age of parents was reported in only one study as 36.9 ± 8.5 years [ 59 ].…”

“…Studies also reported engaging dieticians, nutritionists, or school meal advisors [ 53 , 57 , 63 , 64 ]; dental professionals [ 53 , 55 , 63 , 64 , 80 ]; physicians and medical experts [ 64 , 70 ]; dentistry and nutrition students [ 61 ]; allied health professionals [ 57 , 63 , 64 ]; local wholesalers, suppliers, provider of milk, fruits, and vegetables [ 57 , 84 ]; non-government or community organizations, community practitioners, volunteers, social workers, and community [ 53 – 57 , 71 , 82 , 83 , 86 ]; project staff or researchers [ 52 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 68 , 73 ];as well as government [ 69 , 71 , 82 , 85 ] and private sector [ 82 ] in intervention planning, design, delivery, monitoring, supervision, partnerships, mobilization, and providing program, policy, or partnership support.…”

Integration of oral health promotion in primary school health programs: A scoping review

“…Twenty four studies primarily focused on investigating or comparing outcomes, including program feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, impact, and evaluation [ 52 , 53 , 56 – 62 , 64 – 68 , 70 – 76 , 79 – 81 ]. Remaining examined program efficiency and sustainability [ 82 ]; program contents (topics covered) and components or activities implemented [ 77 , 80 ]; methodology and methods [ 75 , 80 ], intervention framework [ 52 ], and program implementation as well as challenges [ 71 ] – either independently or in addition to outcomes assessment.…”

“…Study design was reported in 21 studies [ Table 1 ], and included randomized controlled trials [ 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 74 , 81 ]; cross‐sectional [ 52 , 55 , 64 , 77 ]; longitudinal cohort [ 53 , 67 , 72 , 75 ]; non-randomized [ 62 , 84 ]; pre-post interventional [ 68 , 70 , 73 ]; evaluation [ 66 ]; and ecological studies [ 56 ]. Remaining 10 studies did not mention study design, although one was qualitative [ 76 ] and four employed mixed-methods [ 61 , 63 , 82 , 83 ].…”

“…Primary school children constituted the program population receiving intervention in all studies. Close to half the studies [n = 15] reported children’s age [ 53 , 57 – 59 , 61 , 62 , 65 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 80 , 81 , 84 ]. ranging from 3 to 13 years.…”

“…Twelve studies reported parents, guardians, or caregivers as the program population [ 52 – 54 , 57 , 59 , 63 , 66 , 71 , 79 , 82 , 84 , 85 ] receiving intervention through receipt of educational materials, social support, school policy or program updates, and meal preparation guidance; supervising children’s hygiene behaviours and meal planning; and participation in meetings, committees, or policy consultations. Mean age of parents was reported in only one study as 36.9 ± 8.5 years [ 59 ].…”

“…Studies also reported engaging dieticians, nutritionists, or school meal advisors [ 53 , 57 , 63 , 64 ]; dental professionals [ 53 , 55 , 63 , 64 , 80 ]; physicians and medical experts [ 64 , 70 ]; dentistry and nutrition students [ 61 ]; allied health professionals [ 57 , 63 , 64 ]; local wholesalers, suppliers, provider of milk, fruits, and vegetables [ 57 , 84 ]; non-government or community organizations, community practitioners, volunteers, social workers, and community [ 53 – 57 , 71 , 82 , 83 , 86 ]; project staff or researchers [ 52 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 65 , 68 , 73 ];as well as government [ 69 , 71 , 82 , 85 ] and private sector [ 82 ] in intervention planning, design, delivery, monitoring, supervision, partnerships, mobilization, and providing program, policy, or partnership support.…”