Department of Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany.
Department of Health, Long-Term Care and Pensions, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 3;18(17):9339. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179339.
We quantified the effectiveness of an oral health intervention among home care recipients. Seven German insurance funds invited home care recipients to participate in a two-arm randomized controlled trial. At t, the treatment group (TG) received an intervention comprising an oral health assessment, dental treatment recommendations and oral health education. The control group (CG) received usual care. At t, blinded observers assessed objective (Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT)) and subjective (Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)) oral health and the objective periodontal situation (Periodontal Screening Index (PSI)). Of 9656 invited individuals, 527 (5.5%) participated. In the TG, 164 of 259 (63.3%) participants received the intervention and 112 (43.2%) received an outcome assessment. In the CG, 137 of 268 (51.1%) participants received an outcome assessment. The OHAT mean score (2.83 vs. 3.31, = 0.0665) and the OHIP mean score (8.92 vs. 7.99, = 0.1884) did not differ significantly. The prevalence of any periodontal problems (77.1% vs. 92.0%, = 0.0027) was significantly lower in the TG than in the CG, but the prevalence of periodontitis was not (35.4% vs. 44.6%, = 0.1764). Future studies should investigate whether other recruitment strategies and a more comprehensive intervention might be more successful in improving oral health among home care recipients.
我们评估了一项针对家庭护理受助人的口腔健康干预措施的效果。7 家德国保险公司邀请家庭护理受助人参加一项双臂随机对照试验。在 t 时，治疗组（TG）接受了一项包括口腔健康评估、牙科治疗建议和口腔健康教育的干预措施。对照组（CG）接受常规护理。在 t 时，盲法观察者评估了客观（口腔健康评估工具（OHAT））和主观（口腔健康影响概况（OHIP））口腔健康以及客观牙周状况（牙周筛查指数（PSI））。在受邀的 9656 人中，有 527 人（5.5%）参与。在 TG 中，259 名参与者中有 164 人（63.3%）接受了干预，112 人（43.2%）接受了结果评估。在 CG 中，268 名参与者中有 137 人（51.1%）接受了结果评估。OHAT 平均得分（2.83 对 3.31， = 0.0665）和 OHIP 平均得分（8.92 对 7.99， = 0.1884）无显著差异。TG 组任何牙周问题的患病率（77.1%对 92.0%， = 0.0027）明显低于 CG 组，但牙周炎的患病率没有差异（35.4%对 44.6%， = 0.1764）。未来的研究应探讨其他招募策略和更全面的干预措施是否能更有效地改善家庭护理受助人的口腔健康。
