ArticleBMC oral health2025
A cross-country comparison of domains describing the general public's self-reported attitudes and experiences of prevention in oral healthcare.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPreventive oral healthcare is essential for overall well-being, yet its delivery varies significantly across Europe due to structural, cultural, and socioeconomic factors. Current dental systems often prioritise treatment over prevention, highlighting a need to understand public attitudes toward preventive care. This study uses the validated PAPOH questionnaire to explore the cross-country differences in 6 domains related to their attitudes and experiences of prevention in oral healthcare across six European countries.
methodsParticipants were recruited via a market research company to ensure demographic representativeness. The PAPOH questionnaire assessed 6 domains: cost, motivation, responsibility, advice received, whether personalised advice was given and knowledge. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression models, adjusted for variables including age, income, and access to dental care. Ethical approvals were secured across participating institutions.
resultsThere were 3,372 participants in six countries sampled by age and gender. Over half (54.8%) reported below-average incomes. The analysis on cost being a barrier showed this was a feature for Ireland (aOR 1.90) and Hungary (aOR 1.61), for Germany this was less of a feature (aOR 0.64). Motivation- Ireland (AMD 0.83) and Hungary (AMD 1.26) scored higher than the UK, while The Netherlands scored lower (AMD - 0.65). Hungary reported higher responsibility scores (aOR 1.58). Preventive advice was rated higher in Ireland (aOR 1.50) and Hungary (aOR 2.80), but lower in Denmark and The Netherlands. Personalised advice was noted more in Denmark (aOR 1.88) and The Netherlands (aOR 1.51). Knowledge scores were lower in all countries except Denmark which may have been due to practices around rinsing after brushing.
conclusionSignificant cross-country differences in attitudes and experiences highlight the role of socioeconomic and cultural factors in shaping preventive oral healthcare. Tailored public health strategies and improved cross-national messaging are essential to address disparities and enhance preventive care delivery.
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.