No abstract

We quantified the effectiveness of an oral health intervention among home care recipients. Seven German insurance funds invited home care recipients to participate in a two-arm randomized controlled trial. At t0, the treatment group (TG) received an intervention comprising an oral health assessment, dental treatment recommendations and oral health education. The control group (CG) received usual care. At t1, blinded observers assessed objective (Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT)) and subjective (Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)) oral health and the objective periodontal situation (Periodontal Screening Index (PSI)). Of 9656 invited individuals, 527 (5.5%) participated. In the TG, 164 of 259 (63.3%) participants received the intervention and 112 (43.2%) received an outcome assessment. In the CG, 137 of 268 (51.1%) participants received an outcome assessment. The OHAT mean score (2.83 vs. 3.31, p = 0.0665) and the OHIP mean score (8.92 vs. 7.99, p = 0.1884) did not differ significantly. The prevalence of any periodontal problems (77.1% vs. 92.0%, p = 0.0027) was significantly lower in the TG than in the CG, but the prevalence of periodontitis was not (35.4% vs. 44.6%, p = 0.1764). Future studies should investigate whether other recruitment strategies and a more comprehensive intervention might be more successful in improving oral health among home care recipients.

Trotz vieler gesetzlicher Maßnahmen erscheint die Mundgesundheit Pflegebedürftiger in häuslicher Pflege immer noch unbefriedigend. In dem vom Innovationsfonds geförderten Projekt „Mundgesundheit bei Pflegebedürftigen“ wird untersucht, inwieweit eine Verbesserung der Mundgesundheit erreicht werden kann, wenn Krankenkassen proaktiv einen Zahnarztbesuch initiieren. Der Beitrag skizziert das Projekt und stellt Ergebnisse der Prozessevaluation dar. Wie sich zeigt, ist das größte Problem dieses zugehenden und aufsuchenden Ansatzes, dass es nicht gelingt, die Zielgruppe zielgenau und umfassend anzusprechen.

Background The generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a low response can be limited by systematic differences between participants and nonparticipants. This participation bias, however, is rarely investigated because data on nonparticipants is usually not available. The purpose of this article is to compare all participants and nonparticipants of a RCT to improve oral health among home care recipients at baseline and during follow-up using claims data. Methods Seven German statutory health and long-term care insurance funds invited 9656 home care recipients to participate in the RCT MundPflege. Claims data for all participants (n = 527, 5.5% response) and nonparticipants (n = 9129) were analyzed. Associations between trial participation and sex, age, care dependency, number of Elixhauser diseases, and dementia, as well as nursing, medical, and dental care utilization at baseline, were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. Associations between trial participation and the probability of (a) moving into a nursing home, (b) being hospitalized, and (c) death during 1 year of follow-up were examined via Cox proportional hazards regressions, controlling for baseline variables. Results At baseline, trial participation was positively associated with male sex (odds ratio 1.29 [95% confidence interval 1.08–1.54]), high (vs. low 1.46 [1.15–1.86]) care dependency, receiving occasional in-kind benefits to relieve caring relatives (1.45 [1.15–1.84]), having a referral by a general practitioner to a medical specialist (1.62 [1.21–2.18]), and dental care utilization (2.02 [1.67–2.45]). It was negatively associated with being 75–84 (vs. < 60 0.67 [0.50–0.90]) and 85 + (0.50 [0.37–0.69]) years old. For morbidity, hospitalizations, and formal, respite, short-term, and day or night care, no associations were found. During follow-up, participants were less likely to move into a nursing home than nonparticipants (hazard ratio 0.50 [0.32–0.79]). For hospitalizations and mortality, no associations were found. Conclusions For half of the comparisons, differences between participants and nonparticipants were observed. The RCT’s generalizability is limited, but to a smaller extent than one would expect because of the low response. Routine data provide a valuable source for investigating potential differences between trial participants and nonparticipants, which might be used by future RCTs to evaluate the generalizability of their findings. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00013517. Retrospectively registered on June 11, 2018.