Process Evaluation of a Secondary School-Based Digital Behaviour Change Intervention to Improve Toothbrushing: The BRIGHT Randomised Controlled Trial.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Community dentistry and oral epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1111/cdoe.13019
Sarab El-Yousfi, Nicola Innes, Ian Kellar, Caroline Fairhurst, Hannah Ainsworth, Ivor Chestnutt, Peter Day, Donna Dey, Sue Pavitt, Mark Robertson, Katie Whiteside, Zoe Marshman
{"title":"Process Evaluation of a Secondary School-Based Digital Behaviour Change Intervention to Improve Toothbrushing: The BRIGHT Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"Sarab El-Yousfi, Nicola Innes, Ian Kellar, Caroline Fairhurst, Hannah Ainsworth, Ivor Chestnutt, Peter Day, Donna Dey, Sue Pavitt, Mark Robertson, Katie Whiteside, Zoe Marshman","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.13019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim was to conduct a process evaluation of a multicomponent behaviour change intervention to reduce dental caries in secondary school children in the UK. The intervention was evaluated in the BRIGHT randomised controlled trial which investigated clinical and cost-effectiveness. The trial involved 4680 participants from 42 schools with a follow-up period of 2.5 years. Schools with an above-average proportion of free school meal (FSM) eligibility, an indicator of low household income, were recruited. The intervention, an oral health classroom-based session (CBS) delivered by school staff and twice-daily text messages aimed to improve toothbrushing frequency with fluoride toothpaste.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Key components of process evaluations were examined: Implementation (fidelity, dose delivered, adaptations and reach), mechanisms of impact (acceptability and dose received) and influential contextual factors. Data collection ran alongside that of the outcome evaluation. Mixed-methods data collection comprised pupil self-reported questionnaires, staff feedback questionnaires, CBS and text message delivery logs and semi-structured interviews/focus groups with school staff and pupils. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively, while framework analysis was applied to the qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intervention was generally implemented as intended, albeit with some schools not confirming CBS delivery and a technical problem resulting in text messages being stopped prematurely. Some adaptations to the CBS were made by school staff. In terms of reach, 21.9% (n = 1025) of participants were FSM-eligible. At baseline, 77.6% (n = 3631) of randomised participants reported brushing at least twice daily with no difference over time in the social cognitive determinants of toothbrushing behaviour. The intervention was generally found to be acceptable with varying levels of participant responsiveness reported. The actual dose received was unclear; some schools did not provide a CBS attendance register, and some participants reported blocking or muting the text messages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This evaluation raises the question of whether the intervention dose and quality of delivery were sufficient to support the required behaviour change mechanisms. Moreover, a high proportion of participants brushed twice daily at baseline; this also calls into question the intervention's ability to bring about significant change. The trial findings did not favour the implementation of the two-component intervention (CBS and text messages) within a school setting. However, with oral health as part of the general health school curriculum, the BRIGHT CBS could be adopted within the UK curriculum as it was co-developed with young people and was found acceptable to pupils and teachers.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN number: 12139369.</p>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.13019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim was to conduct a process evaluation of a multicomponent behaviour change intervention to reduce dental caries in secondary school children in the UK. The intervention was evaluated in the BRIGHT randomised controlled trial which investigated clinical and cost-effectiveness. The trial involved 4680 participants from 42 schools with a follow-up period of 2.5 years. Schools with an above-average proportion of free school meal (FSM) eligibility, an indicator of low household income, were recruited. The intervention, an oral health classroom-based session (CBS) delivered by school staff and twice-daily text messages aimed to improve toothbrushing frequency with fluoride toothpaste.

Methods: Key components of process evaluations were examined: Implementation (fidelity, dose delivered, adaptations and reach), mechanisms of impact (acceptability and dose received) and influential contextual factors. Data collection ran alongside that of the outcome evaluation. Mixed-methods data collection comprised pupil self-reported questionnaires, staff feedback questionnaires, CBS and text message delivery logs and semi-structured interviews/focus groups with school staff and pupils. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively, while framework analysis was applied to the qualitative data.

Results: The intervention was generally implemented as intended, albeit with some schools not confirming CBS delivery and a technical problem resulting in text messages being stopped prematurely. Some adaptations to the CBS were made by school staff. In terms of reach, 21.9% (n = 1025) of participants were FSM-eligible. At baseline, 77.6% (n = 3631) of randomised participants reported brushing at least twice daily with no difference over time in the social cognitive determinants of toothbrushing behaviour. The intervention was generally found to be acceptable with varying levels of participant responsiveness reported. The actual dose received was unclear; some schools did not provide a CBS attendance register, and some participants reported blocking or muting the text messages.

Conclusions: This evaluation raises the question of whether the intervention dose and quality of delivery were sufficient to support the required behaviour change mechanisms. Moreover, a high proportion of participants brushed twice daily at baseline; this also calls into question the intervention's ability to bring about significant change. The trial findings did not favour the implementation of the two-component intervention (CBS and text messages) within a school setting. However, with oral health as part of the general health school curriculum, the BRIGHT CBS could be adopted within the UK curriculum as it was co-developed with young people and was found acceptable to pupils and teachers.

Trial registration: ISRCTN number: 12139369.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以中学为基础的数字行为改变干预措施改善刷牙情况的过程评估:BRIGHT 随机对照试验。
目的:目的是对一项旨在减少英国中学生龋齿的多成分行为改变干预措施进行过程评估。该干预措施在 BRIGHT 随机对照试验中进行了评估,该试验调查了临床和成本效益。该试验有来自 42 所学校的 4680 名参与者参加,跟踪期为 2.5 年。试验招募了免费校餐(FSM)资格比例高于平均水平的学校(FSM是家庭收入较低的一个指标)。干预措施是由学校教职员工开展的口腔健康课堂教学(CBS)和每天两次的短信,旨在提高使用含氟牙膏刷牙的频率:方法:研究了过程评估的主要内容:方法:研究了过程评估的主要内容:实施(保真度、提供的剂量、适应性和到达率)、影响机制(可接受性和收到的剂量)以及有影响的环境因素。数据收集与结果评估同时进行。混合方法的数据收集包括学生自我报告问卷、教职员工反馈问卷、CBS 和短信发送记录,以及与学校教职员工和学生的半结构化访谈/焦点小组。对定量数据进行了描述性总结,对定性数据进行了框架分析:干预措施总体上按预期实施,尽管有些学校没有确认 CBS 的发送,而且技术问题导致短信过早停止。学校教职员工对 CBS 做了一些调整。就覆盖范围而言,21.9%(n = 1025)的参与者符合家庭支助服务资格。在基线阶段,77.6%(n = 3631)的随机参与者表示每天至少刷牙两次,刷牙行为的社会认知决定因素在不同时期没有差异。人们普遍认为干预措施是可以接受的,但参与者的反应程度各不相同。实际收到的剂量并不清楚;一些学校没有提供 CBS 出勤登记册,一些参与者报告说他们屏蔽了短信或将短信静音:这项评估提出了一个问题:干预措施的剂量和实施质量是否足以支持所需的行为改变机制。此外,有很高比例的参与者在基线时每天刷牙两次;这也让人怀疑干预措施能否带来显著的改变。试验结果并不支持在学校环境中实施由两部分组成的干预措施(社区健康服务和短信)。不过,由于口腔健康是普通健康学校课程的一部分,BRIGHT CBS可以在英国的课程中采用,因为它是与年轻人共同开发的,学生和老师都能接受:试验注册:ISRCTN 编号:12139369。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Community dentistry and oral epidemiology
Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology is to serve as a forum for scientifically based information in community dentistry, with the intention of continually expanding the knowledge base in the field. The scope is therefore broad, ranging from original studies in epidemiology, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, and health services research through to methodological reports in program planning, implementation and evaluation. Reports dealing with people of all age groups are welcome. The journal encourages manuscripts which present methodologically detailed scientific research findings from original data collection or analysis of existing databases. Preference is given to new findings. Confirmations of previous findings can be of value, but the journal seeks to avoid needless repetition. It also encourages thoughtful, provocative commentaries on subjects ranging from research methods to public policies. Purely descriptive reports are not encouraged, nor are behavioral science reports with only marginal application to dentistry. The journal is published bimonthly.
期刊最新文献
Process Evaluation of a Secondary School-Based Digital Behaviour Change Intervention to Improve Toothbrushing: The BRIGHT Randomised Controlled Trial. Long-Term Oral Health Effects of Traumatic Events Among World Trade Center Health Registry Enrolees, 2003-2020. Issue Information Reviewer list 2024 Hospital Dental Admissions and Caries Experience Among Children With Neurodevelopmental Disabilities: A Population-Based Record Linkage Cohort Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1