ArticleJournal of public health dentistry2023
Topical fluoride hesitancy among caregivers: Development of a content-valid topical fluoride hesitancy identification item pool.
Article in Journal of public health dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are significantly and positively associated: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a content-valid set of items to characterize different types of topical fluoride hesitancy among caregivers. We will use this information to develop and test tailor-made interventions directed to caregivers with varied types and levels of topical fluoride hesitancy, to ultimately improve child oral health.
methodsCaregivers participated in three study activities, in the following order: (1) semi-structured concept elicitation interviews (n = 56), (2) cognitive interviews (n = 9), and (3) usability interviews (n = 3). Interviews were conducted via telephone and audio-recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Twelve pediatric dental providers and researchers participated in item review. An assessment of reading level of items was made with goal of 6th grade reading level or less.
resultsBased on elicitation interviews, we initially developed 271 items, which the investigative team evaluated for conceptual clarity, specificity to topical fluoride hesitancy, and sensitivity to potential interventions. After four rounds of review and cognitive interviews, we retained 33 items across five previously identified domains. Changes after cognitive interviews included item revision to improve comprehension and item re-ordering to avoid order effects. Changes after usability testing including clarification regarding referent child for families with multiple children. The reading level of the item pool is grade 3.2.
conclusionsThe resulting 33-item fluoride hesitancy item pool is content valid and will address an important need for identifying and addressing topical fluoride hesitancy in the context of dental research and clinical practice. Next steps include psychometric evaluation to assess scale and test-retest reliability and construct validity.
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.