J Am Dent Assoc. 2020 Sep;151(9):650-659. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.06.003.
The authors aimed to assess the scientific evidence on motivational interviewing for the clinical reduction of early childhood caries compared with traditional dental health education.
Search terms were selected on the basis of Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings terms. The main key words were motivational interviewing, early childhood caries, and education. Potentially eligible studies involved the clinical assessment of caries rate in children whose parents or caregivers received motivational interviewing as an intervention. The authors assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. In March 2019, the authors performed an electronic database search of literature published in English within the following databases: Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase.
Of 329 articles retrieved initially, 14 were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and 3 articles contributed to the meta-analysis. For statistical analysis, the mean difference of continuous data was analyzed at a 95% confidence interval using the random-effects model.
Overall, the evidence presented in this review was limited. Although the results of the meta-analysis showed that motivational interviewing is as effective as dental health education in controlling early childhood caries, we need more and better designed and reported interventions to assess its impact on early childhood caries accurately.
本研究旨在评估动机性访谈与传统口腔健康教育相比在临床减少幼儿龋齿方面的科学证据。
根据医学主题词和非医学主题词选择检索词。主要关键词为动机性访谈、幼儿龋齿和教育。潜在的合格研究涉及对接受动机性访谈作为干预的儿童家长或照顾者的龋齿率进行临床评估。本研究使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。2019 年 3 月,作者对发表在以下数据库中的英文文献进行了电子数据库检索:Scopus、Cochrane、PubMed 和 Embase。
最初检索到的 329 篇文章中,有 14 篇符合纳入系统评价的标准,有 3 篇文章纳入荟萃分析。对于连续性数据的统计分析,采用随机效应模型在 95%置信区间内分析均数差值。
总的来说,本综述中的证据有限。尽管荟萃分析的结果表明,动机性访谈在控制幼儿龋齿方面与口腔健康教育同样有效,但我们需要更多设计良好、报告规范的干预措施来准确评估其对幼儿龋齿的影响。