SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Acceptability of oral health care: a scoping review of reviews to inform framework development.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCanada launched the Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) in 2023 to improve access by reducing cost barriers. Data from September 2025 indicate that only about half of enrollees had accessed services, highlighting that addressing affordability alone may not be sufficient to facilitate uptake. Among the multiple dimensions of access, acceptability has been the least explored in oral health, despite its influence on whether patients seek care and providers deliver it. This review synthesized acceptability-related barriers and facilitators from patient and provider perspectives to assess their influence on access to and utilization of oral health care.
methodsA scoping review of reviews was conducted. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO) and targeted grey literature from oral health and governmental organizations were searched for English or French language sources explicitly addressing acceptability or proxy concepts in oral health. Extracted findings were analyzed thematically using an abductive approach within a constructivist/interpretivist paradigm.
resultsSixty-four sources (47 peer-reviewed reviews, 17 grey literature) met inclusion. Key patient-level barriers included anxiety, fear, cultural beliefs, and provider attributes; facilitators included behavioural or psychological support, provider's cultural competency, and shared decision making. Key provider-level barriers centered on inadequate reimbursement and gaps in clinical preparedness; facilitators included structural support and targeted training. Identified themes informed the development of the acceptability of oral health care framework.
conclusionsAcceptability is context-dependent and influenced by both patient and provider perspectives. Applying this lens can bridge gaps between coverage, reach, and utilization by ensuring that care is not only about being affordable and available, but also aligned with patient and provider needs and expectations. Integrating acceptability into oral health care policy and program planning is critical to maximizing uptake and equity.
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.