AimThis qualitative evidence synthesis was performed to establish a conceptual model of oral health in dependent adults that defines the construct of oral health and describes its interrelationships based on dependent adults’ and their caregivers’ experiences and views.MethodsSix bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, OATD, and OpenGrey. Citations and reference lists were manually searched. A quality assessment of included studies was conducted independently by two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. The ‘best fit’ framework synthesis method was applied. Data were coded against an a priori framework and data not captured by this framework were thematically analyzed. To assess the confidence of the findings from this review, the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE‐CERQual) approach was used.ResultsTwenty‐seven eligible studies were included from 6126 retrieved studies. Four themes were generated to further understand oral health in dependent adults: oral health status, oral health impact, oral care, and oral health value.ConclusionThis synthesis and conceptual model offer a better understanding of oral health in dependent adults and subsequently provide a starting point to guide establishment of person‐centred oral care interventions.

Background Dependent adults have been shown to have a greater experience of oral health deterioration and orofacial pain. This is partly because their non-dental caregivers may not easily identify oral health problems and orofacial pain experienced by them. Thus, this systematic review aimed to investigate measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of instruments assessing oral health and orofacial pain in dependent adults, which can be used by the non-dental caregivers to establish oral care plans for those who are dependent upon them. Methods Seven bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, HTA, OATD and OpenGrey. Citations and reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and then full texts. A quality assessment of included studies was conducted independently by two authors using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The best evidence synthesis method was used to synthesise results from different studies for each measurement property per measurement instrument by integrating the overall rating for each measurement property per measurement instrument with its quality level of evidence. Results Nineteen eligible studies were included, which reported the development, measurement properties’ evaluation, interpretability and feasibility of nine oral health and three orofacial pain measurement instruments. Methodological quality of the included studies ranged from very good to inadequate. None of the identified measurement instruments has been adequately and comprehensively tested. Conclusions While several measurement instruments were identified in this systematic review, more evidence is needed to be able to more comprehensively evaluate these instruments. Among those identified, the OPS-NVI demonstrated sufficient construct validity, while the OHAT and the THROAT demonstrated sufficient reliability. These instruments therefore have potential for future use with more confidence once other measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility have been sufficiently tested and evaluated.