ABSTRACT
Background This study compared the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) and conventional caries prevention (CCP) for primary (caries increment) and secondary outcomes (caries intensity, gingival health, caregiver-reported oral health-related knowledge, behaviours and attitudes) over 12 months.Methods High-caries-risk children and caregivers received CCP or MI with comprehensive dental care. Fidelity was monitored using MI treatment integrity code 4.2.1. Caries increment, intensity and gingival health were measured at baseline, six and twelve months. Readiness Assessment of Parents Concerning Infant Dental Decay questionnaires recorded oral health-related knowledge, behaviours and attitudes.Results In total, 86 caregiver-child dyads (CCP = 51; MI = 35) were recruited. The mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) in caries increment (ΔdICDAS1-6mfs + DICDAS1-6MFS) was significantly higher with MI compared to CCP at six (MI 2.3 [1.2, 3.5] vs CCP 0.6 [0.1, 1.0]; p <0.001) and twelve (MI 4.3 [2.5, 6.0] vs CCP 1.2 [0.6, 1.8]; p <0.001) months. Multivariate analysis with CCP as reference group, odds ratio (95% CI) for new/progressed caries (Δdecayed, missing and filled surface score [permanent] + decayed, missing and filled surface score [primary] >0) at six and twelve months were 18.2 (4.0, 81.7); p <0.001 and 12.6 (3.3, 47.8); p <0.001, respectively. The MI group reported positive behaviours and attitudes.Conclusions CCP was more effective in reducing caries increment when behaviour change technique was incorporated into the preventative strategies as per current paediatric dentistry guidelines.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Motivational interviewing (MI) is a promising behavioural intervention for prevention of dental caries in children. Few studies have reported on fidelity of MI delivered in dental settings. The aim of this paper is to explore the fidelity of implementing MI in a clinical dental practice setting, as part of an intervention study investigating caries-preventive effects of MI delivered to high-caries-risk children and their primary caregivers. METHODS: Three oral health therapy clinicians trained in MI (counsellors) provided MI to high-caries-risk children and their primary caregivers. All MI sessions (n = 34) were audio-recorded and analysed using the MI Treatment Integrity code 4.2.1. Qualitative analysis of counsellor self-reflections identified barriers to MI delivery. RESULTS: All counsellors were found to adhere to the MI process and demonstrated fair to good MI proficiency for global scores, with a mean (95% CI) of 3.3 (3.1-3.4) recorded for technical scores and 3.6 (3.5-3.8) for relational scores. The mean (95% CI) per cent complex reflections was 23% (19.4-27.1) and the mean reflection:question ratio was 0.7 (0.6-0.9). No significant differences were observed between counsellors for MI proficiency. Cultural barriers, environmental distractions, participant dental anxiety and counsellor tendency towards prescriptive advice-giving were identified by counsellors as hindrances to effective MI. CONCLUSIONS: Motivational interviewing is a skill which requires multifaceted training, practice and mentoring to meet accepted proficiency thresholds. Monitoring of MI using a validated tool is essential to ensure delivery as intended and accurately attribute outcomes to the intervention. Dental organizations intending to implement MI for caries prevention should be aware of the demands on time and resources required to deliver proficient MI and monitor fidelity.
