Psychosocial correlates of oral hygiene behaviour in people aged 9 to 19 – a systematic review with meta‐analysis. Issue 4 (8th March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Scheerman, Janneke F. M.; van Loveren, Cor; van Meijel, Berno; Dusseldorp, Elise; Wartewig, Eva; Verrips, Gijsbert H. W.; Ket, Johannes C. F.; van Empelen, Pepijn
• Is Part Of: Community dentistry and oral epidemiology. Volume 44:Issue 4(2016:Aug.)
• Page Start: 331
• Page End: 341
• Publication Date: 2016-03-08
• Subjects: behavioral science -- dental health perceptions -- oral hygiene -- pediatric dentistry -- psychosocial aspects of oral health; Dental public health -- Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12224
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-5661

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: This systematic and meta‐analytic review aimed to quantify the association of psychosocial correlates with oral hygiene behaviour among 9‐ to 19‐year olds. Methods: A systematic search up to August 2015 was carried out using the following databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. If necessary, authors of studies were contacted to obtain unpublished statistical information. A study was eligible for inclusion when it evaluated the association between the psychosocial correlates and oral hygiene behaviour varying from self‐reports to clinical measurements, including plaque and bleeding scores. A modified New Castle Ottawa Scale was applied to examine the quality of the included studies. Results: Twenty‐seven data sets ( k ) presented in 22 publications, addressing nine psychosocial correlates, were found to be eligible for the meta‐analysis. For both tooth brushing and oral hygiene behaviour, random effect models revealed significant weighted average correlation ( r + ) for the psychosocial factors: 'intention', 'self‐efficacy', 'attitude' (not significant for tooth brushing), 'social influence', 'coping planning' and 'action planning' ( r + ranging from 0.18 to 0.57). Little or no associations were found for 'locus of control', 'self‐esteem' and 'sense of coherence' ( r + ranges from 0.01 to 0.08). Conclusions: The data at present indicates that 'self‐efficacy', 'intention', 'social influences', 'coping planning' and 'action planning' are potential psychosocial determinants of oral health behaviour. Future studies should consider a range of psychological factors that have not been studied, but have shown to be important psychosocial determinants of health behaviours, such as 'self‐determination', 'anticipated regret', 'action control' and 'self‐identity'. Effectiveness of addressing these potential determinants to induce behaviour change should be further examined by intervention trials.