Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34270110›Full record

ReviewCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2021

Adopting the COM-B model and TDF framework in oral and dental research: A narrative review.

Heather Buchanan, Jonathon Timothy Newton, Sarah R Baker, Koula Asimakopoulou

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Cariology-Competency Teaching Among Latin American Dental Schools Implementing the Regional Curriculum Framework: COM-B Analysis.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heather BuchananDivision of Rehabilitation, Ageing & Wellbeing, Medical School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0714-5830
Jonathon Timothy NewtonFaculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King' College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4082-6942
Sarah R BakerOral Health, Dentistry and Society, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2861-451X
Koula AsimakopoulouFaculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King' College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3420-8523
Guy's Hospital · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in the psychological understanding of health-related behaviour have focused on producing a comprehensive framework to model such behaviour. The Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) and its associated Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) allow researchers to classify psychological and behavioural constructs in a consistent and transferable manner across studies.

aimTo identify oral and dental health-related studies that have used the TDF and/or COM-B as frameworks to guide research and examine the ways in which these concepts have been practically used in such research.

methodNarrative review of published literature. To be included, the paper had to (1) state that the TDF or COM-B had been used and to have targeted at least one construct identified in either framework, (2) include primary empirical data, (3) focus on a behaviour directly related to oral or dental-related health (eg brushing, applying fluoride varnish, flossing) and/or attitudes, intentions and beliefs related to the behaviour. Studies could include any research design, and participants of any age or gender and include patients, parents or dental health professionals.

findingsNine studies were identified that had drawn on the COM-B and/or TDF as the framework for their research. Seven of the studies were based on the TDF only, with one employing both the COM-B and Health Belief Model, and one using the TDF with COM-B. The nine studies covered a broad range of oral health-related behaviours including child tooth brushing, fluoride varnish application and non- or micro-invasive management of proximal caries lesions. The populations in the studies included dentists, dental teams and parents of children. All studies adopted only a subset of the constructs within the TDF, often without justification.

conclusionsIt is encouraging that oral health researchers are adopting standardized psychological frameworks to develop their research and oral health interventions. Future work should build on the small number of studies identified in this review and consider using standardized tools to do so.

Indexed as

Dental CariesMotivationChildDental ResearchHealth BehaviorHumansParentsBehavioral sciencePsychosocial aspects of oral health

Identifiers

PMID34270110
PMCPMC9290067
OpenAlexW3181673539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.