Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2022
A scoping review of interventions to improve oral health in prison settings.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Booth Joelle, O'Malley Lucy, Meek Rosie, Goldrick Niall Mc, Maycock Matthew, Clarkson Janet, Wanyonyi-Kay Kristina
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of oral health interventions implemented in prison settings and explore the barriers and facilitators towards implementation.
METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, six databases were searched including Medline (R), Emcare, Embase, AMED, Cochrane and PsycINFO. A total of 978 studies were returned and screened. The inclusion criteria were those studies conducted in a prison population, with an intervention to address oral health and published since 2000.
RESULTS: Ten studies published between 2008 and 2021 were included. All were conducted in high-income countries. Three intervention types were identified: health education (n = 5), teledentistry (n = 3) and screening or triaging (n = 2). The barriers and facilitators to successful implementation were grouped into a framework of four overarching concepts. These included prison environment, population makeup, compliance and staffing.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence suggests that oral health interventions in prisons are focused on improving access to services and oral health messages. A range of drivers including the prison environment, staffing levels, recruitment and intervention compliance influence implementation and the success of interventions.
METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, six databases were searched including Medline (R), Emcare, Embase, AMED, Cochrane and PsycINFO. A total of 978 studies were returned and screened. The inclusion criteria were those studies conducted in a prison population, with an intervention to address oral health and published since 2000.
RESULTS: Ten studies published between 2008 and 2021 were included. All were conducted in high-income countries. Three intervention types were identified: health education (n = 5), teledentistry (n = 3) and screening or triaging (n = 2). The barriers and facilitators to successful implementation were grouped into a framework of four overarching concepts. These included prison environment, population makeup, compliance and staffing.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Evidence suggests that oral health interventions in prisons are focused on improving access to services and oral health messages. A range of drivers including the prison environment, staffing levels, recruitment and intervention compliance influence implementation and the success of interventions.