Observational studyPloS one2024
Psychometric properties of the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT).
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSome caregivers are hesitant about topical fluoride for their children despite evidence that fluoride prevents caries and is safe. Recent work described a five domain model of caregivers' topical fluoride hesitancy. We developed the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT) item pool based on the model. This study sought to evaluate the FHIT's psychometric properties in an effort to generate a short, simple to score, reliable, and valid tool that measures caregivers' topical fluoride hesitancy.
methodsIn 2021 and 2022, we conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of caregivers, collecting data from two independent caregiver samples (n1 = 523; n2 = 612). The FHIT item pool included 33 items. We used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine whether the FHIT items measured five separate domains as hypothesized and to reduce the number of items. We then fit item response theory (IRT) models and computed Cronbach's alpha for each domain. Last, we examined the construct validity of the FHIT and evaluated scoring approaches.
resultsAfter dropping 8 items, CFA supported a five factor model of topical fluoride hesitancy, with no cross-loadings (RMSEA = 0.079; SRMR = 0.057; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98). We further reduced the items to four per domain (20 items total). Marginal alphas showed that the item sets provided reliability of ≥0.90 at hesitancy levels at and above average. The domains correlated more strongly with each other and topical fluoride refusal than with other questions on the survey. DISCUSSION: Our results support the FHIT's ability to reliably and validly measure five domains of topical fluoride hesitancy using the average score of the four items in each domain.
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.