ArticleJournal of public health dentistry2018
Caregivers' understanding of fluoride varnish: implications for future clinical strategies and research on preventive care decision making.
Article in Journal of public health dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral health literacy from a person-centered focus in the United States: a narrative review.BMC oral health · 2025Review
- Topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are significantly and positively associated: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Study on Dentists' Communication Approaches in Managing Fluoride-Hesitant Caregivers.JDR clinical and translational research · 2024Article
- A Mixed-Methods Study on Topical Fluoride Beliefs and Refusal Behaviors for Caregivers of Children with Special Health Care Needs.Maternal and child health journal · 2024Article
- Variation in General Dentists' Patterns of Sealant Use in Children with Elevated Caries Risk.JDR clinical and translational research · 2023Article
- Topical Fluoride Applications Related Posts Analysis on Twitter Using Natural Language Processing.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe caregivers' understanding of fluoride varnish.
methodsWe administered the Oral Health Literacy Inventory for Parents within a pediatric dental clinic (N = 113). Caregivers were asked to read and define each item. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded inductively. The main analyses focused on responses to "fluoride varnish" and were conducted at the response level.
resultsOf the 140 responses, 22.1 percent of the responses indicated lack of knowledge about fluoride varnish, 23.6 percent that it was for teeth, 8.6 percent as something in toothpaste or water, and 45.7 percent as something that helps teeth. About 52.7 percent of responses indicated lack of knowledge, incomplete, or incorrect understanding. At the caregiver-level, 50.4 percent did not know what fluoride varnish was or provided an incorrect or incomplete response.
conclusionMany caregivers have an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of fluoride varnish, which has implications for how healthcare providers communicate about preventive care and future research on caregiver decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.