ArticlePloS one2025
Implementation of oral health evidence-based practices in early care education settings across the U.S. during different COVID-19 periods.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted oral health practices in early care education (ECE) centers. This study describes the implementation of oral health evidence-based practices (EBP) in ECE centers enrolled in the web-based Go NAPSACC program pre-, during-, and post-COVID-19 stay-at-home (SAH) orders. This repeated cross-sectional study analyzed retroactive data from three types of programs (n = 1,490), that participated in Go NAPSACC oral health modules between January 2017 and April 2024: Head Start (n = 154), family child care home (FCCH; n = 540), and center-based (n = 796). Programs that did not use the Oral Health module (n = 10,425) and had duplicate registrations (n = 91) were excluded. The analysis focused on EBP total score and percentage of EBP met scores. We found significant differences in oral health EBP total and EBP met scores between program type (p < 0.001). Head Start programs had statistically significant higher EBP total percentage scores (81.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.5, 85.2; p < 0.0001) than FCCH programs (69.5, 95% CI = 67.1, 71.8; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (59.5, 95% CI = 57.3, 61.7). Similarly, Head Start programs had higher EBP met scores (62.0, 95% CI = 57.7, 66.3; p < 0.0001), than FCCH programs (49.7, 95% CI = 46.7, 52.7; p < 0.0001), and center-based programs (36.9, 95% CI = 34.1, 39.8). We observed no statistically significant differences among programs based on SAH order period for neither EBP total scores (period, p = 0.761; interaction between program type and period, p = 0.788) nor EBP met scores (period, p = 0.178; interaction between program type and SAH order period, p = 0.293). These findings suggest that ECE programs struggle to meet oral health EBP across the three study periods, and the observed differences across program type was not explained by SAH orders.
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.