Psychometric properties of the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT).

INTRODUCTION: Some caregivers are hesitant about topical fluoride for their children despite evidence that fluoride prevents caries and is safe. Recent work described a five domain model of caregivers' topical fluoride hesitancy. We developed the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT) item pool based on the model. This study sought to evaluate the FHIT's psychometric properties in an effort to generate a short, simple to score, reliable, and valid tool that measures caregivers' topical fluoride hesitancy. METHODS: In 2021 and 2022, we conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of caregivers, collecting data from two independent caregiver samples (n1 = 523; n2 = 612). The FHIT item pool included 33 items. We used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine whether the FHIT items measured five separate domains as hypothesized and to reduce the number of items. We then fit item response theory (IRT) models and computed Cronbach's alpha for each domain. Last, we examined the construct validity of the FHIT and evaluated scoring approaches. RESULTS: After dropping 8 items, CFA supported a five factor model of topical fluoride hesitancy, with no cross-loadings (RMSEA = 0.079; SRMR = 0.057; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98). We further reduced the items to four per domain (20 items total). Marginal alphas showed that the item sets provided reliability of ≥0.90 at hesitancy levels at and above average. The domains correlated more strongly with each other and topical fluoride refusal than with other questions on the survey. DISCUSSION: Our results support the FHIT's ability to reliably and validly measure five domains of topical fluoride hesitancy using the average score of the four items in each domain.

A Mixed-Methods Study on Topical Fluoride Beliefs and Refusal Behaviors for Caregivers of Children with Special Health Care Needs.

OBJECTIVE: To understand topical fluoride-related beliefs and refusal behaviors for caregivers of children with special health care needs (CSHCN). METHODS: This was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. For the quantitative analyses, we surveyed 520 caregivers to (a) compare fluoride-related beliefs between caregivers of CSHCN and caregivers of healthy children and (b) evaluate the association between special health care need (SHCN) status and topical fluoride refusal. We used logistic regression models to generate unadjusted odds ratios, confounder-adjusted odds ratios (AOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For the qualitative analyses, we interviewed 56 caregivers who refused or were hesitant about topical fluoride. Data were coded deductively and compared by SHCN status to an existing conceptual model of topical fluoride refusal. RESULTS: In the quantitative analysis, 41.3% of caregivers refused or thought about refusing topical fluoride. There were no significant differences in fluoride beliefs by SHCN status (p-values > 0.05) nor was there a significant association between SHCN status and topical fluoride refusal (AOR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.37-1.14; p = 0.13). In the qualitative analysis, the relative importance of each domain of the conceptual model was similar between the caregiver groups. Two differences were that all caregivers of CSHCN thought fluoride was unnecessary and wanted to keep chemicals out of their child's body. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: While caregivers of CSHCN were not more likely to refuse topical fluoride than caregivers of healthy children, there may be important differences in the underlying reasons for refusing topical fluoride.

A Qualitative Assessment of Factors Influencing Fluoride-Hesitant Parents' Trust of Dentists.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use fluoride-hesitant parents as a model to identify the factors that erode versus build trust in their child's dentists. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using a semi-structured interview guide with fluoride-hesitant parents recruited from two dental clinics and through snowball sampling. A content analysis was performed to identify factors that erode versus build parents' trust in their child's dentist. RESULTS: Of the 56 parents interviewed, most were female (91.1 percent) and white (57.1 percent) and had a mean age of 41±9.7 (standard deviation) years. Factors identified included five that erode trust (having trust violated previously, sensing discrepancies, getting pushed to accept fluoride, feeling dismissed, and sensing bias) and four that build trust (being treated as an individual, having a dentist who communicates, feeling supported and respected, and having a choice). CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' understanding of the factors that erode and build trust with parents could help providers develop patient-centered communication strategies.

A conceptual model on caregivers' hesitancy of topical fluoride for their children.

BACKGROUND: Topical fluoride hesitancy is a well-documented and growing public health problem. Despite extensive evidence that topical fluoride is safe and prevents tooth decay, an increasing number of caregivers are hesitant about their children receiving topical fluoride, leading to challenges in clinical settings where caregivers refuse preventive care. PURPOSE: To explore the determinants of topical fluoride hesitancy for caregivers with dependent children. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we interviewed 56 fluoride-hesitant caregivers to develop an inductive conceptual model of reasons why caregivers are hesitant. RESULTS: The core construct of the conceptual model of topical fluoride hesitancy centered on caregivers "wanting to protect and not mess up their child". Six domains comprised this core construct: thinking topical fluoride is unnecessary, wanting to keep chemicals out of my child's body, thinking fluoride is harmful, thinking there is too much uncertainty about fluoride, feeling pressured to get topical fluoride, and feeling fluoride should be a choice. CONCLUSIONS: Topical fluoride hesitancy is complex and multifactorial. Study findings provide insight for future efforts to understand and optimize caregivers' preventive care decision making.

Health insurance is associated with dental care use among university students in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to examine the association of health insurance and preventive dental care use among university students. METHODS: This secondary analysis of cross-sectional data focused on students at University of Washington in Washington state (WA) who completed a health insurance survey in 2017 (n = 3768). The exposure was health insurance (private insurance in WA [reference group], not insured, Medicaid or Medicare [public insurance], university insurance, private insurance not in WA, other) and the outcome was receiving a dental cleaning in the past 6 months. Logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: About 5% of university students did not have health insurance and 37% did not have a dental cleaning in the past 6 months. Compared to students with private health insurance based in WA, the odds of not receiving a dental cleaning were 3.90 times greater for university students with no health insurance (95% CI 2.74, 5.55; p < .001) and 3.08 times greater for publicly-insured university students (95% CI 2.52, 3.76; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: University students are at risk for poor oral health behaviors. Those without health insurance and those with public insurance face barriers to preventive dental care. Efforts should be made to connect uninsured university students with insurance, dental services, and other oral health promotion activities.

Topical fluoride hesitancy among caregivers: Development of a content-valid topical fluoride hesitancy identification item pool.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a content-valid set of items to characterize different types of topical fluoride hesitancy among caregivers. We will use this information to develop and test tailor-made interventions directed to caregivers with varied types and levels of topical fluoride hesitancy, to ultimately improve child oral health. METHODS: Caregivers participated in three study activities, in the following order: (1) semi-structured concept elicitation interviews (n = 56), (2) cognitive interviews (n = 9), and (3) usability interviews (n = 3). Interviews were conducted via telephone and audio-recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Twelve pediatric dental providers and researchers participated in item review. An assessment of reading level of items was made with goal of 6th grade reading level or less. RESULTS: Based on elicitation interviews, we initially developed 271 items, which the investigative team evaluated for conceptual clarity, specificity to topical fluoride hesitancy, and sensitivity to potential interventions. After four rounds of review and cognitive interviews, we retained 33 items across five previously identified domains. Changes after cognitive interviews included item revision to improve comprehension and item re-ordering to avoid order effects. Changes after usability testing including clarification regarding referent child for families with multiple children. The reading level of the item pool is grade 3.2. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting 33-item fluoride hesitancy item pool is content valid and will address an important need for identifying and addressing topical fluoride hesitancy in the context of dental research and clinical practice. Next steps include psychometric evaluation to assess scale and test-retest reliability and construct validity.

Qualitative evaluation of the pre-implementation phase of a rural dental clinic co-located within a health center in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The development of a dental clinic within an existing Rural Health Clinic (RHC) was proposed to improve access to dental care for Medicaid enrollees in Washington. This qualitative study assessed the implementation of a co-located dental clinic in a rural community during the pre-implementation phase. Additionally, we sought to determine the needs and expectations of community members living in this rural Washington county. METHODS: This study took place in Jefferson County, Washington, a Dental Health Professional Shortage Area. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 participants, consisting of administrators (n = 9), health providers (n = 9) and community members (n = 24). Administrators and health providers were interviewed by phone. Community members were interviewed in-person at Jefferson Healthcare primary care clinics or by phone. Interview data were deductively coded, and thematic analysis with a hybrid inductive-deductive approach was used to analyse coded data. RESULTS: Five themes were identified regarding local needs and expectations: dental care as a major need in the community, persisting barriers to dental care access, expecting more than a 'Medicaid experience', visions for a clinic that serves the community, and solutions outside the clinic to improve community oral health. CONCLUSIONS: By improving access to dental care, a co-located dental clinic is helping to address general dental care needs in rural communities. Policy-level solutions that address housing and food insecurity, improve public transportation, and retain and expand low-income adult Medicaid dental benefits may be needed to overcome persisting barriers to oral health.

Understanding topical fluoride hesitancy and refusal behaviors through the extended parallel process model and health belief model.

OBJECTIVES: Topical fluoride helps prevent dental caries. However, many caregivers are hesitant about topical fluoride for their children and may refuse it during clinic visits. In this qualitative study, we assessed the relevance of the extended parallel process model (EPPM) and health belief model (HBM) in caregivers' decision-making about topical fluoride. METHODS: We interviewed 56 fluoride-hesitant or fluoride-refusing caregivers using a semi-structured interview script that included questions based on select constructs from the EPPM (perceived severity, susceptibility, response efficacy) and HBM (perceived benefits and consequences). Two team members conducted a thematic analysis of the interview data. RESULTS: Most caregivers acknowledged the severity of cavities but did not believe their child was susceptible. Caregivers also understood the general benefits of fluoride in preventing tooth decay, but reported low response efficacy of fluoride for their children especially compared to the other ways of reducing caries risk like reducing sugar intake and toothbrushing. Many caregivers had concerns about topical fluoride, especially regarding safety, with the potential consequences of fluoride outweighing its benefits. CONCLUSION: Our findings were generally consistent with the EPPM and HBM, which appear to be relevant in understanding fluoride hesitancy behaviors. Additional research is needed on ways to improve provider communications about topical fluoride with caregivers.

Preventive oral health care use for children with special health care needs aged 6 through 12 years enrolled in Medicaid: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to assess preventive oral health care (POHC) use for children with special health care needs (CSHCN) aged 6 through 12 years enrolled in Medicaid and identify intervention strategies to improve oral health. METHODS: In this sequential mixed methods study, the authors analyzed 2012 Medicaid data for children aged 6 through 12 years in Washington state. They used eligibility and claims data to identify special health care needs status (independent variable) and POHC use (outcome variable). They ran modified Poisson regression models to generate prevalence rate ratios. They coded data from 21 key informant interviews deductively using content analytic techniques. RESULTS: Of the 208,648 children in the study, 18% were identified as CSHCN and 140,468 used POHC (67.3%). After adjusting for confounding variables, the authors found no difference in POHC use by special health care need status (prevalence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.01; P = .91). In the qualitative analysis, the authors identified 5 themes: caries risk depends on a child's specific health condition, caries complicates overall health, having a special need creates a bigger barrier to care, legislation alone is "not going to make much of a dent," and improvements across all fronts are needed to promote the oral health of CSHCN in Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: CSHCN enrolled in Medicaid are just as likely as children without special health care needs to use POHC, although barriers to oral health care access persist for CSHCN. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Future efforts should focus on comprehensive strategies that address the varying levels of dental disease risk and difficulties accessing oral health care within the diverse group of CSHCN.

Participant Engagement in and Perspectives on a Web-Based Mindfulness Intervention for 9-1-1 Telecommunicators: Multimethod Study.

BACKGROUND: Demanding working conditions and secondary exposure to trauma may contribute to a high burden of stress among 9-1-1 telecommunicators, decreasing their ability to work effectively and efficiently. Web-based mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) can be effective in reducing stress in similar populations. However, low engagement may limit the effectiveness of the intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess participant engagement in a Web-based MBI designed for 9-1-1 telecommunicators. Specifically, we sought to describe the following: (1) participant characteristics associated with intervention engagement, (2) participant perspectives on engaging with the intervention, and (3) perceived challenges and facilitators to engaging. METHODS: We used qualitative and quantitative data from participant surveys (n=149) that were collected to assess the efficacy of the intervention. We conducted descriptive and bivariate analyses to identify associations between demographic, psychosocial, and workplace characteristics and engagement. We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative survey responses to describe participant experiences with the MBI. RESULTS: We found that no individual participant characteristics were associated with the level of engagement (low vs high number of lessons completed). Participant engagement did vary by the call center (P<.001). We identified the following overarching qualitative themes: (1) the participants perceived benefits of mindfulness practice, (2) the participants perceived challenges to engage with mindfulness and the intervention, and (3) intervention components that facilitated engagement. The participants expressed positive beliefs in the perceived benefits of practicing mindfulness, including increased self-efficacy in coping with stressors and increased empathy with callers. The most commonly cited barriers were work-related, particularly not having time to participate in the intervention at work. Facilitators included shorter meditation practices and the availability of multiple formats and types of intervention content. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that efforts to improve intervention engagement should focus on organizational-level factors rather than individual participant characteristics. Future research should explore the effect of mindfulness practice on the efficiency and effectiveness of 9-1-1 telecommunicators at work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02961621; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02961621.