ArticleBMC oral health2025
First Dental Steps intervention: feasibility study of a health visitor led infant oral health improvement programme.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn England, dental caries is common (22.4% of 5-year-olds, 2024) and the primary reason for hospital admission of children. First Dental Steps (FDS), an intervention in South West England, includes training for health visitors, integrating oral health advice into home visits and provision of oral health packs (a free flow cup, toothbrush and 1450ppm fluoride toothpaste) to vulnerable families at the 1-year developmental check. The aim was to conduct a feasibility study of FDS to support parents to increase infant toothbrushing.
methodsThis study explored the feasibility and acceptability of the FDS intervention and research methods in 5 local authority areas in South West England and 4 comparison sites. Data collection (June 2021-February 2022) included baseline and follow-up questionnaires (mean 5 months), semi-structured interviews with parents (n = 16), health visitors (n = 7), and stakeholders (n = 16). Analysis of questionnaires was descriptive, and interviews were analysed using the framework method.
resultsParents completed baseline (n = 59) and follow-up questionnaires (n = 26), with 10 parents (40%) reporting an increase in brushing frequency and 4 families (15%) reported visiting a dentist. From the interview data, five themes were identified 1) acceptability of the intervention, 2) feasibility of the intervention (delivery and implementation), 3) possible benefits of the intervention, 4) acceptability of study methods, and 5) suggested improvements. The FDS intervention was seen to be acceptable and feasible to those who took part, however, challenges with recruitment and retention demonstrate that obtaining data for a full trial would not be feasible.
conclusionsParents, health visitors and stakeholders who took part in our study found FDS to be acceptable and feasible. Recruitment, retention and study methods (completing participant flow table) were challenging, and the progression criteria for the research methods were not met to progress to a full trial. Modifications were recommended to improve the intervention and further co-production approaches could be used to ensure it is culturally appropriate in a diverse population.
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.