Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604661›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

A feasibility study of the costs and consequences of improving the oral health of older people in care homes: findings from the TOPIC study.

Ciaran O'Neill, Paul R Brocklehurst, Saif Syed, Michelle Harvey, Sana Daniyal, Sinead Watson, Nia Goulden, Anna Verey, Peter Cairns, Anja Heilmann and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Ciaran O'NeillCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK. ciaran.oneill@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7668-3934
Paul R BrocklehurstPublic Health Wales, Cardiff, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1878-9030
Saif SyedInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1971-3003
Michelle HarveyCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Sana DaniyalInstitute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8886-613X
Sinead WatsonCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Nia GouldenNorth Wales Organisation for Randomised Trials in Health (NWORTH), Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6511-3987
Anna VereyInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-5710
Peter CairnsPublic contributor (PPI), Northern Ireland, UK.
Anja HeilmannInstitute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8188-5087
Zoe HoareNorth Wales Medical School, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1803-5482
Frank KeeCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7169-9344
Joe LangleySheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9770-8720
Nat LievesleyPublic contributor (PPI), London, UK.
Andrea SherriffSchool of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1016-037X
Craig J SmithDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9078-9919
Rebecca R WassallSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6851-5666
Richard G WattInstitute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6229-8584
Gerald McKennaCentre for Public Health, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8478-1673
Georgios TsakosInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5086-235X

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme: PHR 17/03/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK older adults in care homes have exhibited poorer oral health than age-equivalent persons in the community. In response the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued guidance (NG48) on the maintenance and improvement of oral health in this group. Currently, there is little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of evaluating an intervention framed around NICE guidance.

methodsThe study was undertaken in 22 care homes across 2 sites with eligibility criteria used to ensure access to residents for whom the oral health care intervention was relevant and who could consent to participation. The intervention followed the guidance issued by NICE in respect of care staff knowledge; oral health assessment and development of care plans, and provision of daily mouth care to residents. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from residents and care home managers and interviews undertaken with a range of stakeholders. Quantitative data from residents comprised EQ5D5L at baseline, 6 and 12 months, qualitiative data was taken from interviews. Descriptive statistics and a discussion of themes raised in surveys and interviews was undertaken. The trial was registered with the UK's Clinical Study Registry (ISRCTN10276613) on 17/04/2020.

resultsOf 119 residents recruited, 115 provided usable EQ5D5L data at baseline. The data had good face validity. Managers from 7 of 22 homes provided responses to the care home survey. All responding care homes routinely recorded information on care provided to residents and 5 of the 7 recorded information on the funding source for that care. Care assistant time was a key consideration among managers in terms of resource use. Residents overall quality of life was a key consideration among managers in terms of outcomes. Among key stakeholders, there was a universal appreciation of the need to improve the evidence base on the value for money of interventions framed around NG48.

conclusionThe study supports the case for the conduct of an economic evaluation in a definitive trial to address a manifest gap in the evidence base on oral hygiene interventions in this context.

Indexed as

Dental Care for AgedHomes for the AgedNursing HomesOral HealthAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleUnited KingdomCare homesEconomics evaluationFeasibility studyOlder peopleOral health

Identifiers

PMID40604661
PMCPMC12225423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.