ArticleCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2025
Supervised Toothbrushing Programmes: Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSupervised toothbrushing programmes (STPs), whereby children brush their teeth at nursery or school with a fluoride toothpaste under staff supervision, are a clinically and cost-effective intervention to reduce dental caries. However, uptake is varied, and the reasons unknown. The aim was to use an implementation science approach to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders on the barriers and facilitators at each level of implementation of STPs.
methodsThis qualitative study involved individual interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of stakeholders involved at all levels of implementation of STPs: (1) policymakers; (2) providers of STPs; (3) nursery/school staff; (4) parents/carers; and (5) children (aged 2-6 years old) across England. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
resultsA total of 159 stakeholders were interviewed (40 individual interviews and 17 focus groups) across all levels of implementation. Barriers and facilitators to STP implementation were identified across 35 of the 39 CFIR constructs. Four themes were identified that determined STP implementation: (1) acceptability of STPs; (2) external 'make or break' conditions; (3) the importance of engagement across the system; and (4) desire for centralised support.
conclusionsThis is the first study to qualitatively explore the barriers and facilitators to STP at all levels of implementation underpinned by an implementation science framework. The findings have strong implications for policymakers who wish to implement STPs, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the adaptability of the programmes, the role of formal and informal engagement systems, and the need for centralised support. This work has facilitated the co-design and piloting of a supervised toothbrushing implementation toolkit, which provides a central hub of resources and good practice to optimise implementation of STPs at scale.
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.