ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2025
A Theoretically Informed Process Evaluation in Parallel to a Feasibility Study of a Complex Oral Health Intervention Using NICE Guidelines in a Care Home Setting.
Article in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2025. 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.
- Improving the Oral Health of Older People in Care Homes: Results From a Randomised Feasibility Study.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2025Trial
- Using Role Substitution to Improve Oral Health in Care Homes: A Process Evaluation.Gerodontology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA theoretically informed process evaluation was undertaken in parallel to a study examining the feasibility of an oral health intervention based on an existing guideline for care homes. The objectives were to explore the factors that influenced the implementation of the intervention in order to understand the potential pathway to impact. The research team initially utilised Pfadenhauer et al.'s framework, which focuses on a number of different implementation factors: intervention characteristics, context, theory, process, strategy, agents, outcomes and setting.
methodsNine semi-structured interviews were undertaken with care home managers and staff, predominantly within the intervention arm of the study. Interview schedules were originally based on Pfadenhauer et al.'s framework. These were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. Given the range of themes that emerged, the research team ran a reflexive workshop to determine whether Pfadenhauer et al.'s framework was able to capture and frame the authentic voice of those interviewed.
resultsThe research team found that a systems lens approach better fitted the data from the interviews, capturing the idiosyncrasy of the different settings and the importance of values and beliefs of the key stakeholders. It was clear that unlike the structure proposed by Pfaednhauer et al., many of the factors were interdependent and hierarchical in nature, that is, paradigm and goals within the care home had a direct impact on the system structure, which fed into how the care home was maintained, which led onto how the different actors (care home managers and staff) behaved. The process also highlighted key factors for intervention delivery: time poverty, competing needs, staff turnover, differences between shift patterns and between permanent and agency staff. Cognitive capacity of the residents and staff attitudes were also key.
conclusionsAdding a reflexive workshop enabled the research to critically review the Pfadenhauer et al.'s framework and change to a systems lens approach, which better explained the interdependent and hierarchical nature of the findings. It also highlighted a number of key factors that could influence the pathway to impact for the intervention.
trial registrationISRCTN10276613.
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.