Perceived safety and benefit of community water fluoridation: 2009 HealthStyles survey

Abstract

Objectives To describe perceived benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) and investigate factors associated with those perceptions of CWF among respondents to a proprietary survey in the United States. Methods We obtained data from the 2009 HealthStyles survey, a convenience sample of 4,556 respondents. Pearson's chi-squared and logistic regression were used to determine the associations between certain socio-demographic factors and perceptions regarding the safety and health benefits of CWF. Results The majority of respondents (55.3 percent) strongly agreed/agreed that CWF was safe, while 31.5 percent were neutral, and 13.2 percent disagreed/strongly disagreed. Twenty-seven percent of respondents reported CWF had no health benefit, 57.3 percent reported some benefit, and 15.5 percent reported great benefit. Perceived CWF safety and benefit in the bivariate analyses were associated with gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, income, sealant knowledge, CWF knowledge, past year dental utilization, and perceived vaccine safety. Respondents with knowledge of CWF (47.9 percent) were more likely to agree that it was safe (69.8 percent) than those who reported no knowledge (41.3 percent). Among respondents who said childhood vaccines were not safe (4.0 percent), almost half disagreed that CWF was safe. Logistic regression results indicated that perceived CWF safety and benefits increased with CWF knowledge, perceived vaccine safety, and income. Conclusions Although only a minority of the US population perceived CWF as unsafe or providing no benefit to health, perceptions regarding CWF varied by knowledge of CWF and socio-demographic factors. Oral health promotion activities should consider these differing perceptions of CWF among groups to tailor oral health messaging appropriately.

Associations between Household Water Fluoridation Status and Plain Tap or Bottled Water Consumption

“…One reason could be lack of knowledge regarding the importance of oral health and/or the benefits of fluoridation. One study based on 2009 data found that half of US adults could correctly identify the purpose of CWF (Mork and Griffin 2015). Given that parents' oral health literacy may be associated with their children's oral health knowledge (Dudovitz et al 2020), youth could also be unaware of their household water fluoridation status.…”

Parental perception of fluoridated tap water

“…Several studies have shown that a large number of individuals have worries regarding fluoridation. [353637] Mork and Griffin[38] conducted a study to investigate the perception of safety and benefit of community water fluoridation in the United States. Approximately 50% of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that community water fluoridation was safe, while 31.5% were neutral and 13.2% disagreed/strongly disagreed.…”

Portland Water Fluoridation: A Newspaper Analysis

“…However, efforts were made to increase minority voter turnout in for the fluoride vote, efforts which were successful; Portland's communities of color had a higher than normal turnout for the 2013 CWF election (7.3% in the 2012 general election vs. 10.2% in the 2013 CWF election) (Northwest Health Foundation, ). Research has shown that perceptions of the safety and benefit of CWF vary by knowledge of CWF and socio‐demographic factors, requiring tailored messaging to fit different perceptions (Mork & Griffin, ).…”