Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526030›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2021

Oral care practices in stroke: findings from the UK and Australia.

Munirah Bangee, Cintia Mayel Martinez-Garduno, Marian C Brady, Dominique A Cadilhac, Simeon Dale, Margaret A Hurley, Elizabeth McInnes, Sandy Middleton, Tahera Patel, Caroline L Watkins and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. CHOSEN: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Munirah Bangee *Faculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Cintia Mayel Martinez-Garduno *St Vincent's Health Network Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia.
Marian C BradyNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Dominique A CadilhacSchool of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, VIC, Melbourne, Australia.
Simeon DaleSt Vincent's Health Network Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia.
Margaret A HurleyFaculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Elizabeth McInnesSt Vincent's Health Network Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia.
Sandy MiddletonSt Vincent's Health Network Sydney, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne & Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia.
Tahera PatelFaculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Caroline L WatkinsFaculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Elizabeth LightbodyFaculty of Health and Care, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK. CELightbody@uclan.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo examine current practice, perceptions of healthcare professionals and factors affecting provision for oral care post-stroke in the UK and Australia.

backgroundPoor oral care has negative health consequences for people post-stroke. Little is known about oral care practice in hospital for people post-stroke and factors affecting provision in different countries.

designA cross-sectional survey.

methodsQuestionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing inpatient acute or rehabilitation care post-stroke. The survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times.

resultsCompleted questionnaires were received from 150/174 (86%) hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. A total of 52% of UK hospitals and 30% of Australian hospitals reported having a general oral care protocol, with 53% of UK and only 13% of Australian hospitals reporting using oral care assessment tools. Of those using oral care assessment tools, 50% of UK and 38% of Australian hospitals used local hospital-specific tools. Oral care assessments were undertaken on admission in 73% of UK and 57% of Australian hospitals. Staff had received oral care training in the last year in 55% of UK and 30% of Australian hospitals. Inadequate training and education on oral care for pre-registration nurses were reported by 63% of UK and 53% of Australian respondents.

conclusionUnacceptable variability exists in oral care practices in hospital stroke care settings. Oral care could be improved by increasing training, performing individual assessments on admission, and using standardised assessment tools and protocols to guide high quality care. The study highlights the need for incorporating staff training and the use of oral care standardised assessments and protocols in stroke care in order to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Mouth careNursingOral hygieneProtocolStrokeSurvey

Identifiers

PMID34526030
PMCPMC8442320

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.