School dental screening programmes for oral health

Arora, Ankita; Khattri, Shivi; Ismail, Noor Huda; Sumanth, Kumbargere N; Eachempati, Prashanti

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012595

Cited by 13 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The full list of the specific 8 173 reasons for exclusion of full texts is available in S3 Appendix. Figure 1 used meta-analysis to combine results [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28], whereas the remaining nine SRs narratively 182 synthesized results [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. Eleven SRs included studies located in countries with high-183 income or upper-middle income economies only [19,20,[23][24][25][29][30][31][32][33]37,38,39].…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven SRs included studies located in countries with high-183 income or upper-middle income economies only [19,20,[23][24][25][29][30][31][32][33]37,38,39]. Six SRs 184 included at least one study from countries with lower-middle income or lower income 185 economies [18,21,22,28,35,36]. The final three SRs either did not state the locations of 186 included studies [27,34] or provided regions rather than specific country locations [26].…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…187 To be included in this overview, at least 50% of studies within each SR had to fulfill 188 all inclusion criteria. In four SRs, 100% of included studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria 189 [18,27,29,33], although Brendel and colleagues [29] only included one study in total. In 190 another four SRs, 75% to 99% of included studies fulfilled all the inclusion criteria 191 [21,26,30,37].…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the remaining twelve SRs, 50% to 74% of included studies fulfilled all the 192 inclusion criteria [19,20,[22][23][24][25]28,31,32,[34][35][36]. 193 All SRs primarily examined studies on school-based, rather than school-linked [19,23,24,28,29,[32][33][34]36], four on oral health [18,25,27,30], two on asthma [31,37], and one 196 SR each on sleep [20]; obesity [26]; vision [21]; menstrual management [22]; and sexual and 197 reproductive health (SRH) [35]. Eleven SRs included only cluster-and individually-9 198 randomized controlled trials [19][20][21]24,27,28,30,32,34,37], seven SRs included other types of 199 controlled and uncontrolled experimental studies in addition to RCTs [22,25,…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, reference lists of included 91 articles were scanned for any relevant SRs. 92 Eligibility criteria 93 SRs were included in this overview if at least 50% of the studies within the SR 94 fulfilled the following criteria: (a) participants were children (ages [5][6][7][8][9] or adolescents (ages 95 [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] enrolled in schools; (b) interventions were school-based or school-linked health 96 services, involved a health provider (see definitions in S1 Appendix), and were of any 97 duration or length of follow-up; (c) intervention effectiveness was compared to either no 5 98 intervention, an alternative intervention, the same intervention in a different setting (i.e. not 99 in schools), an active control, or a waitlist control; (d) interventions aimed to improve some 100 aspect of health; and (e) study designs were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 101 quasi-experimental studies (QEs), or other non-randomized intervention studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Investigating the effectiveness of school health services delivered by a health provider: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Levinson

Kohl

Baltag

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

24Schools are the only institution regularly reaching the majority of school-age children 25 and adolescents across the globe. Although at least 102 countries have school health services, 26 there is no rigorous, evidence-based guidance on which school health services are effective 27 42 3 48 healthy setting for living, learning and working" [1]. In 2000, WHO, the United Nations 49 Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Children's 50 Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank developed a partnership for Focusing Resources on 51 Effective School Health -a FRESH Start approach [2]. The FRESH framework promotes 52 four pillars: health-related school policies, provision of safe water and sanitation, skills-based 53 health education and school-based health and nutrition services [2]. While various guidance 54 documents have been published by United Nations (UN) organizations addressing a range of 55 services from oral health to malaria [3-7], there is no internationally accepted guideline 56 regarding school health services. This systematic review of systematic reviews, henceforth 57 referred to as an overview, will inform the upcoming development of a WHO guideline that 58 addresses one pillar of the FRESH framework: school health services delivered by a health 59 provider. 60 Schools offer a unique platform for health care delivery. In 2015, the global means for 61 the primary and secondary net school enrollment rates were 90% and 65%, respectively, thus 62 the potential reach of school health services is wide [8]. Additionally, a recent review found 63 that school-based or school-linked health services already exist in at least 102 countries [9]. 64 The 2017 Global Accelerated Action for the Health of Adolescents (AA-HA!) 65 implementation guidance calls for the prioritization of school health programs as an 66 important step towards universal health coverage and urges that "Every school should be a 67 health promoting school" [10]. 68 The primary objective of this overview was to explore the effectiveness of school-69 based or school-linked health services delivered by a health provider for improving the health 70 of school-age children and adolescents. Through a comprehensive literature search, the 71 overview aimed to identify health areas and specific school health service interventions that 72 have at least some evidence of effectiveness. It was also designed to suggest further research 4 73 in areas where recent systematic reviews (SRs) exist, but with insufficient evidence. Finally, 74 the overview aimed to identify the health areas and specific school health services 75 interventions for which no SRs were found, whether because the primary literature does not 76 exist or where there are primary studies but no SR has been conducted. 77 METHODS 78This overview was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic 79 reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [11]. A protocol was developed a priori that outlined 80 the overview objectives, aims, operational definitions, search ...

show abstract