Content uploaded by Brett Duane
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brett Duane on Oct 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychological approaches to behaviour for improving
plaque control
Abstracted from
Newton JT, Asimakopoulou K.
Managing oral hygiene as a risk factor for periodontal disease: a systematic review of psychological
approaches to behaviour change for improved plaque control in periodontal management. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42: S36-46.
Address for correspondence: J Timothy Newton, Social & Behavioural Sciences Population & Patient Health,
King’s College London Dental Institute, Guy’s Hospital campus, London, UK. E-mail: tim.newton@kcl.ac.uk
SUMMARY REVIEW/PERIODONTAL DISEASE
Data sources The Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trial Register,
Medline, Embase and PsycINFO.
Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical
trials (CCTs), cohort studies or case-control studies were considered.
Only studies in patients aged 18 or older with pre-existing periodontal
disease and clearly stating a psychological model or theory had been
used were included. Studies exploring smoking cessation were not
included.
Data extraction and synthesis All data were collected by a
single author using pre-decided parameters. The reviewers used
the Cochrane criteria to assess risk of bias in clinical trials and
the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Marked
heterogeneity from the wide variety of psychological approaches used
in the studies prevented meta-analysis.
Results Fifteen papers relating to 14 different studies were included
from an initial 722 articles identified. This included three cohort
studies, ten RCTs and a before/after study. A total of 1,106 patients
were included across the studies. Of the 19 psychological models
included in the initial search, seven were shown to have some form
of impact on oral hygiene motivation, demonstrated by observed
behavioural and clinical outcomes.
Conclusions The authors concluded that, in adult patients with
pre-existing periodontal disease, understanding of the seriousness of
periodontal disease and the benefits of behavioural change resulted
in improved adherence to oral hygiene instructions. They concluded
that goal-setting, self-monitoring and indeed planning can be useful in
improving oral health-related behaviours.
3A|2C|2B|2A|1B|1A|
Question: What role do psychological
constructs play in adherence to oral hygiene
instruction in patients with periodontal disease?
www.nature.com/ebd 3
Commentary
The need for improved plaque control in periodontal disease, and for
that matter caries, has long been considered one of the main factors
contributing to optimal oral health. A dental care professional
would be remiss for not discussing, and actively demonstrating to a
patient how to achieve good oral health.
The evidence however for the effectiveness of standard oral
hygiene advice given in a practice setting is low. Harris1 demonstrated
that one to one dietary interventions could change behaviour, but
the evidence behind one-to-one interventions and changing sugar
consumption was less convincing. The need for innovative ways
for dental care professionals to influence oral health is welcome,
and mechanisms which rely on psychological constructs such as
motivational interviewing have shown promise.2
A systematic review summarises the results of available studies.3
The authors searched Cochrane, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO.
Although there were no language restrictions on their search, it
would have been useful to include searches in other languages, and
databases which include other languages, eg Chinese, and Latin
American publications. The age group was appropriate given the
periodontal disease focus, however it would have been interesting
to see how age would have influenced psychological constructs in
a younger group. It is interesting that Werner,2 in a similar paper,
included people 13 years or older.
In many of the papers reviewed, as the authors point out, sample
sizes seemed quite low; in Weinstein et al.’s paper4 there were only
20 participants, in Stenman’s5 there were 44 and in Jonsson's6
there were 37 participants. Even though the literature does not
specifically state what is a minimum sample size for randomised
controlled trials, it does seem difficult with such small sample sizes
to be convinced if the conclusion and statistical vigour is somehow
biased due to the small size of the sample; with the result perhaps
not related to the intervention but relating to the variability within
the small number of participants.
As well as the questionnaire sample sizes, for at least one of the
studies the follow-up was only three months,7 long enough perhaps
to measure change in behaviour, but not long enough to determine
if the behaviour change is long-term. A clinician is interested in
longer term behavioural changes (ie changes in one or two years)
and most of the studies reviewed regrettably measured behavioural
changes for only 12 months.
It is noted that the searches were conducted by one author who
also assessed the studies by examining titles, etc. It may have added
to the quality of the systematic review if this had been conducted
ORAL CANCER
SUMMARY REVIEW/PERIODONTAL DISEASE
along the lines of Cochrane methodology with two authors
assessing studies.7 For the unenlightened reader, although not an
aim of the paper, it would have also been useful to have a written
brief description of what the models meant.
The authors include a complete list of the search terms used
to enable the review to be easily completed, with a clear consort
diagram showing the number of records identified, screened,
deemed eligible and included. The authors should be commended
for not only including a table of included studies but also a table of
excluded studies for completeness. Listing excluded papers is not
reliably part of systematic reviews and does help aid in transparency
in the review process. Similarly, the summary of key studies enables
a reader to determine their own view of the quality of the papers
reviewed. To understand the relevance of this study to a particular
patient group it would have been useful to know more about the
studies’ participants. Factors such as age, smoking status and socio-
economic status are all known to influence behaviour 8 and it would
have been good to have included these details.
Newton included a risk of bias suggested by the Cochrane
reviewers’ handbook for RCTs, and the Newcastle Ottawa Quality
Assessment scale for cohort and case control studies. To add to the
readability it would have been handy perhaps to have plotted risk of
bias as a Cochrane inspired red, amber, green (traffic light) figure.9
Newton concludes that there is a relationship between the
perception of a patient of the benefits of behavioural change and the
seriousness of the disease. He also adds that interventions based on
the use of goal-setting, self-monitoring and planning are effective in
improving oral health-related behaviours.
Newton is right of course, there is a relationship, but as he
acknowledges it is probably weak due to the sheer heterogeneity
of the different studies, based on different theories and constructs,
in addition to the flaws discussed above. The papers all had a
psychological construct as their basis, but included just two based
on a health belief model, one on a health locus of control, three
on social learning theory, one on the theory of planned behaviour,
one on implementation intention, two on cognitive behavioural
interaction and three on motivational interviewing. As Newton also
suggested the interactions weren’t always conducted as one would
expect. In all three motivation interviewing interventions, which
should have appropriate time allowed, 15 minutes was allocated to
the psychological intervention, which may not be sufficient time to
be effective at improving outcomes.10
Newton’s conclusions should also be considered by the reader
along with the recent publication by Weiner.2 Weiner’s systematic
review looked at ‘psychological interventions for poor oral health’
rather than oral hygiene in periodontal disease with a differing,
but perhaps supportive conclusion; psychological interventions
should not yet be routinely provided in dental care for patients
with poor oral health, and they should be restricted in patients if
the benefits, risks, cost-effectiveness and ethical aspects are taken
into account.
Brett Duane
Dublin Dental University Hospital, Dublin, Eire
1. Harris R,Gamboa A,Dailey Y,Ashcroft A.One-to-one dietary interventions
undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour.Cochrane Database Syst
Rev2012;3: Art. No. CD006540. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006540.pub2.
2. Werner H, Hakeberg M, Dahlström L, et al. Psychological Interventions for
Poor Oral Health: A Systematic Review. J Dent Res 2016; 95: 506-514. doi:
10.1177/0022034516628506. Epub 2016 Jan 29.
3. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available at: http://
consumers.cochrane.org/what-systematic-review (accessed October 2016).
4. Weinstein R, Tosolin F, Ghilardi L, Zanardelli E. Psychological intervention in patients
with poor compliance. J Clin Periodontol 1996; 23: 283-288.
5. Stenman J,Lundgren J,Wennström JL,Ericsson JS,Abrahamsson KH.A
single session of motivational interviewing as an additive means to improve
adherence in periodontal infection control: a randomized controlled trial.J Clin
Periodontol2012;39: 947-954. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01926.x.
6. Jönsson B, Lindberg P, Oscarson N, Öhrn K. Improved compliance and self-care in
patients with periodontitis--a randomized control trial. Int J Dent Hyg 2006; 4: 77-83.
doi:10.1111/j.1601-5037.2006.00175.x
7. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors).Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
InterventionsVersion 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org (accessed February 2016).
8. Albarracin D, Gillette JC, Earl AN, Glasman LR, Durantini MR. A test of major
assumptions about behaviour change: A comprehensive look at the effects of passive
and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychol
Bull 2005; 131: 856-897.
9. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available at: http://
handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/figure_8_6_c_example_of_a_risk_of_bias_
summary_figure.htm (accessed March 2017).
10. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Ten things that motivational interviewing is not. Behav Cogn
Psychother 2009; 37: 129-140. doi: 10.1017/S1352465809005128.
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2017) 18, 3-4. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6401213
Practice point
• Practitioners should consider that oral hygiene advice based on
a psychological construct may be more effective than oral health
advice without.
4 © EBD 2017:18.1
