ArticleMaternal and child health journal2024
A Mixed-Methods Study on Topical Fluoride Beliefs and Refusal Behaviors for Caregivers of Children with Special Health Care Needs.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are significantly and positively associated: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Behavioral Correlates of Caregiver-Reported Oral Health of Individuals With Joubert Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryObservational
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 understand topical fluoride-related beliefs and refusal behaviors for caregivers of children with special health care needs (CSHCN).
methodsThis was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. For the quantitative analyses, we surveyed 520 caregivers to (a) compare fluoride-related beliefs between caregivers of CSHCN and caregivers of healthy children and (b) evaluate the association between special health care need (SHCN) status and topical fluoride refusal. We used logistic regression models to generate unadjusted odds ratios, confounder-adjusted odds ratios (AOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For the qualitative analyses, we interviewed 56 caregivers who refused or were hesitant about topical fluoride. Data were coded deductively and compared by SHCN status to an existing conceptual model of topical fluoride refusal.
resultsIn the quantitative analysis, 41.3% of caregivers refused or thought about refusing topical fluoride. There were no significant differences in fluoride beliefs by SHCN status (p-values > 0.05) nor was there a significant association between SHCN status and topical fluoride refusal (AOR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.37-1.14; p = 0.13). In the qualitative analysis, the relative importance of each domain of the conceptual model was similar between the caregiver groups. Two differences were that all caregivers of CSHCN thought fluoride was unnecessary and wanted to keep chemicals out of their child's body. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: While caregivers of CSHCN were not more likely to refuse topical fluoride than caregivers of healthy children, there may be important differences in the underlying reasons for refusing topical fluoride.
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.