Evaluating oral health promotion: need for quality outcome measures

• Published in: Community dentistry and oral epidemiology 2006-02, Vol.34 (1), p.11-17
• Main Authors: Watt, Richard G., Harnett, Robert, Daly, Blanaid, Fuller, Sabrina S., Kay, Elizabeth, Morgan, Antony, Munday, Polly, Nowjack-Raymer, Ruth, Treasure, Elizabeth T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Attitude to Health; Child; Child, Preschool; Dental Health Services; Dentistry; evaluation; Health Education, Dental - standards; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Policy; Health Promotion - standards; Humans; Life Style; Oral Health; oral health promotion; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards; outcome measures; Parents; Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards; Quality of Life; Social Change; Social Environment
• ISSN: 0301-5661; 1600-0528
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00257.x

–  Oral health promotion effectiveness reviews have identified the need to improve the quality of the evaluation of interventions. A project was undertaken to identify and assess the quality of available outcome measures. This paper describes the methodology adopted and highlights the need for further development of oral health promotion outcome measures. Initially a thorough and comprehensive search of both the published and unpublished literature was undertaken to identify potential outcome measures. A set of quality criteria was then developed and used to assess the identified measures. The search identified a total of 1202 outcome measures of which 39% (n = 466) were developed for use with schoolchildren. A high proportion of the identified measures were classified as health literacy and healthy lifestyle outcomes, appropriate for the evaluation of oral health education activities. Only 1% (n = 12) of measures identified were classified in the healthy public policy category. When reviewed against the quality criteria, 49% (n = 594) of the measures were considered satisfactory. The poorest performing measures were those classified as healthy lifestyle and health literacy measures in which only 33% (n = 72) and 41% (n = 240), respectively, were deemed to be of satisfactory quality. In conclusion, a significant number of oral health promotion evaluation outcome measures have been identified although their quality is highly variable. Very few high‐quality outcome measures exist for use in the evaluation of oral health policy and environmental interventions. The lack of appropriate and high‐quality outcome measures is hampering the development of oral health promotion.