ArticleJournal of public health dentistry2026
From Evidence to Engagement: Understanding Online Resistance to Community Water Fluoridation for Public Health Communication-A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of public health dentistry, 2026. 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study explored how individuals in an online anti-CWF community construct and sustain opposition narratives to inform evidence-based communication and policy engagement.
methodsA qualitative study was undertaken with adults who self-identified as not supportive of CWF. Fourteen participants from the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States of America were recruited via the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page, a prominent global hub for anti-fluoridation discourse. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom between January and July 2025. Data were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. Codes were organized into main, generic, and sub-categories and quantified by endorsement frequency. Reporting followed SRQR and COREQ guidelines.
resultsFive main categories were identified: (1) Knowledge, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Policy Views; (2) Information Sources and Trust; (3) Reasons for Opposition; (4) Grassroots and Community Actions; and (5) Alternatives and Conditions for Acceptability. Opposition to CWF was shaped by ethical, health, and institutional concerns rather than by scientific disagreement alone. Eight generic categories captured key reasons for opposition, including perceptions of mass medication without consent, health and social harms, institutional distrust, concerns about industrial waste, ethical objections, skepticism about benefits, preference for individualized alternatives, and experiences of professional dismissal. Anti-fluoride networks and social media were the most trusted sources of information (86%), while trust in mainstream science and health authorities was very low (< 15%).
conclusionsOpposition to CWF is sustained through network-mediated information ecosystems and reinforced by behavioral economic mechanisms, including loss aversion, autonomy bias, and default framing effects. Effective public health responses must therefore move beyond evidence dissemination to incorporate network-aware communication and behavioral insights-informed strategies that prioritize transparency, public participation, and equitable framing of CWF within broader oral health policy.
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.