Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36567141›Full record

ArticleVaccine2023

Association between caregiver opposition to topical fluoride and COVID-19 vaccines.

Sapna J Saini, Adam C Carle, Anna R Forsyth, Donald L Chi

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sapna J SainiDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Washington School of Dentistry, 6222 NE 74th St #8158, Seattle, WA 98115, USA. Electronic address: ssaini@pippediatric.com.
Adam C CarleJames M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., MLC 7014, Cincinnati, OH 45229-3039, USA; Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 3230 Eden Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati College of Arts and Sciences, 1 Edwards Center, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA. Electronic address: adam.carle@cchmc.org.
Anna R ForsythDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Washington School of Dentistry, 6222 NE 74th St #8158, Seattle, WA 98115, USA. Electronic address: annarose@uw.edu.
Donald L ChiDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Washington School of Dentistry, 6222 NE 74th St #8158, Seattle, WA 98115, USA; Department of Oral Health Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 357475, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Department of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Box 357660, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. Electronic address: dchi@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

Developing Topical Fluoride Hesitancy Measures for Causal Modeling and Intervention ResearchR01DE026741 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CHI, DONALD LESLIE · 2018 to 2021
$1.7M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE026741
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCaregivers who oppose topical fluoride in dental settings may be opposed to other preventive health treatments, including COVID-19 vaccines. The study objective was to examine the association between caregiver opposition to topical fluoride and COVID-19 vaccines.

methodsThe study took place at the University of Washington in Seattle, WA. English-speaking caregivers of children aged < 18 years were eligible to participate. An 85-item REDCap survey was administered from February to September 2021. The predictor variable was topical fluoride opposition (no/yes). The outcome was COVID-19 vaccine opposition (no/yes). The models included the following covariates: child and caregiver age; caregiver race and ethnicity, education level, dental insurance type, parenting style, political ideology, and religiosity; and household income. Logistic regression models generated odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (α = 0.05).

resultsSix-hundred-fifty-one caregivers participated, and 403 caregivers with complete data were included in the final regression model. Mean child age was 8.5 years (SD 4.2), mean caregiver age was 42.1 years (SD 9.1), 53.0 % of caregivers were female, 57.3 % self-reported as white, and 65.5 % were insured by Medicaid. There was a significant positive association between topical fluoride and COVID-19 vaccine opposition (OR = 3.13; 95 % CI: 1.87, 5.25; p < 0.001). Other factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine opposition included conservative political views (OR = 2.77; 95 % CI: 1.26, 6.08; p < 0.011) and lower education (OR = 3.47; 95 % CI: 1.44, 8.38; p < 0.006).

conclusionsCaregivers opposed to topical fluoride in dental settings were significantly more likely to oppose COVID-19 vaccines for their child. Future research should identify ways to address both topical fluoride and vaccine opposition to prevent diseases in children.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCaregiversChildCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleFluorides, TopicalHumansMaleMedicaidVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesFluorides, TopicalVaccinesCOVID-19Fluoride hesitancyFluoride oppositionTopical fluorideVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36567141
PMCPMC9747692
OpenAlexW4311445392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.