Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2023
Motivational interviewing for preventing oral morbidities in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cartes-Velásquez Ricardo, Varnet-Pérez Tomás, Martínez-Delgado Cecilia María, Villanueva-Vilchis María Del Carmen, Ramírez-Trujillo María de Los Ángeles, Faustino-Silva Daniel Demétrio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to assess whether motivational interviewing (MI) effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.
METHODS: Studies considered were randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized controlled trials and community-based randomized trials assessing interventions based on MI or indicating that a counselling technique based on the principles developed by Miller and Rollnick was used. Controls were any type of oral health education or negative controls. Participants were 18-60 years old. The main outcome was any oral morbidity. From 602 studies identified in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS databases, seven studies were included in the synthesis.
RESULTS: Studies included only evaluated periodontal outcomes, no studies were found for other oral morbidities. Patients' mean age was 43.7 years, and the follow-up time after MI or MI-based intervention varied between 1 month and 1 year. The total study population was 272 people with moderate-to-severe periodontitis; other groups analysed were pregnant women (n = 112) and patients with mental disorders and alcohol problems (n = 60). Meta-analysis for the plaque index (four studies, n = 267), bleeding on probing (two studies, n = 177) and gingival index (two studies, n = 166) were carried out. The summary effects for the random-effects model were estimated respectively as -3.59 percentage points (CI: [-11.44; 4.25] for plaque index, -6.41 percentage points (CI: [-12.18, -0.65]) for bleeding on probing and -0.70 (CI: [-1.87; 0.48]) for gingival index, marginally favouring the MI group. The reduced number of studies, the non-disclosure of some aspects of the data and the heterogeneity among them undermine the precision of the estimates.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence available is limited to periodontal outcomes, and it is not possible to determine whether MI effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.
METHODS: Studies considered were randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized controlled trials and community-based randomized trials assessing interventions based on MI or indicating that a counselling technique based on the principles developed by Miller and Rollnick was used. Controls were any type of oral health education or negative controls. Participants were 18-60 years old. The main outcome was any oral morbidity. From 602 studies identified in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS databases, seven studies were included in the synthesis.
RESULTS: Studies included only evaluated periodontal outcomes, no studies were found for other oral morbidities. Patients' mean age was 43.7 years, and the follow-up time after MI or MI-based intervention varied between 1 month and 1 year. The total study population was 272 people with moderate-to-severe periodontitis; other groups analysed were pregnant women (n = 112) and patients with mental disorders and alcohol problems (n = 60). Meta-analysis for the plaque index (four studies, n = 267), bleeding on probing (two studies, n = 177) and gingival index (two studies, n = 166) were carried out. The summary effects for the random-effects model were estimated respectively as -3.59 percentage points (CI: [-11.44; 4.25] for plaque index, -6.41 percentage points (CI: [-12.18, -0.65]) for bleeding on probing and -0.70 (CI: [-1.87; 0.48]) for gingival index, marginally favouring the MI group. The reduced number of studies, the non-disclosure of some aspects of the data and the heterogeneity among them undermine the precision of the estimates.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence available is limited to periodontal outcomes, and it is not possible to determine whether MI effectively prevents oral morbidities in adults.