Explore the vast range of titles available.

Key points Dental service provision is a complex system with multiple incentives and counter-incentives to prevention. Downstream activities at scale should complement upstream activity to counter the commercial and structural determinants of health and inequity. Despite good examples of innovative practice, the widely endorsed Delivering better oral health toolkit is still not implemented across all dental practices.

Background In the UK older adults in care homes have exhibited poorer oral health than age-equivalent persons in the community. In response the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued guidance (NG48) on the maintenance and improvement of oral health in this group. Currently, there is little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of evaluating an intervention framed around NICE guidance. Methods The study was undertaken in 22 care homes across 2 sites with eligibility criteria used to ensure access to residents for whom the oral health care intervention was relevant and who could consent to participation. The intervention followed the guidance issued by NICE in respect of care staff knowledge; oral health assessment and development of care plans, and provision of daily mouth care to residents. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from residents and care home managers and interviews undertaken with a range of stakeholders. Quantitative data from residents comprised EQ5D5L at baseline, 6 and 12 months, qualitiative data was taken from interviews. Descriptive statistics and a discussion of themes raised in surveys and interviews was undertaken. The trial was registered with the UK’s Clinical Study Registry (ISRCTN10276613) on 17/04/2020. Results Of 119 residents recruited, 115 provided usable EQ5D5L data at baseline. The data had good face validity. Managers from 7 of 22 homes provided responses to the care home survey. All responding care homes routinely recorded information on care provided to residents and 5 of the 7 recorded information on the funding source for that care. Care assistant time was a key consideration among managers in terms of resource use. Residents overall quality of life was a key consideration among managers in terms of outcomes. Among key stakeholders, there was a universal appreciation of the need to improve the evidence base on the value for money of interventions framed around NG48. Conclusion The study supports the case for the conduct of an economic evaluation in a definitive trial to address a manifest gap in the evidence base on oral hygiene interventions in this context.

Background Across the European Union costs for the treatment of oral disease is expected to rise to €93 Billion by 2020 and be higher than those for stroke and dementia combined. A significant proportion of these costs will relate to the provision of care for older people. Dental caries severity and experience is now a major public health issue in older people and periodontal disease disproportionately affects older adults. Poor oral health impacts on older people’s quality of life, their self-esteem, general health and diet. Oral health care service provision for older people is often unavailable or poor, as is the standard of knowledge amongst formal and informal carers. The aim of this discussion paper is to explore some of the approaches that could be taken to improve the level of co-production in the design of healthcare services for older people . Main text People’s emotional and practical response to challenges in health and well-being and the responsiveness of systems to their needs is crucial to improve the quality of service provision. This is a particularly important aspect of care for older people as felt, expressed and normative needs may be fundamentally different and vary as they become increasingly dependent. Co-production shifts the design process away from the traditional ‘top-down’ medical model, where needs assessments are undertaken by someone external to a community and strategies are devised that encourage these communities to become passive recipients of services. Instead, an inductive paradigm of partnership working and shared leadership is actively encouraged to set priorities and ultimately helps improve the translational gap between research, health policy and health-service provision. Discussion The four methodological approaches discussed in this paper (Priority Setting Partnerships, Discrete Choice Experiments, Core Outcome Sets and Experience Based Co-Design) represent an approach that seeks to better engage with older people and ensure an inductive, co-produced process to the research and design of healthcare services of the future. These methods facilitate partnerships between researchers, healthcare professionals and patients to produce more responsive and appropriate public services for older people.

Background Evidence for interventions promoting oral health amongst care home residents is weak. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline NG48 aims to maintain and improve the oral health of care home residents. A co-design process that worked with residents and care home staff to understand how the NG48 guideline could be best implemented in practice has been undertaken to refine a complex intervention. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of the intervention to inform a future larger scale definitive trial. Methods This is a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up that will be undertaken in 12 care homes across two sites (six in London, six in Northern Ireland). Care homes randomised to the intervention arm (n = 6) will receive the complex intervention based on the NG48 guideline, whilst care homes randomised to the control arm (n = 6) will continue with routine practice. The intervention will include a training package for care home staff to promote knowledge and skills in oral health promotion, the use of the Oral Health Assessment Tool on residents by trained care home staff, and a ‘support worker assisted’ daily tooth-brushing regime with toothpaste containing 1500 ppm fluoride. An average of ten residents, aged 65 years or over who have at least one natural tooth, will be recruited in each care home resulting in a recruited sample of 120 participants. Assessments will be undertaken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months, and will include a dental examination and questionnaires on general health and oral health administered by a research assistant. A parallel process evaluation involving semi-structured interviews will be undertaken to explore how the intervention could be embedded in standard practice. Rates of recruitment and retention, and intervention fidelity will also be recorded. A cost-consequence model will determine the relevance of different outcome measures in the decision-making context. Discussion The study will provide valuable information for trialists, policymakers, clinicians and care home staff on the feasibility and associated costs of oral health promotion in UK care homes. Trial registration ISRCTN10276613. Registered on 17th April 2020. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10276613 .

Special care dentistry (SCD) provides holistic oral service provision for people with complex health and care needs. These can include physical, sensory, intellectual, mental, medical, emotional or social impairment or disability or, more often, a combination of these factors. The level of disability within these population groups can vary, and a proportion of people will have multiple and overlapping impairments and/or medical conditions. This paper explores a number of possible research methods that may better reflect the diversity and challenges of this population group, where the emphasis is placed on co-production and co-design.

Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem. In the UK, the incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Determining the feasibility of a national screening program for oral cancer is therefore an important step in the prevention of the disease. Evidence exists to suggest that an oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy. However, questions remain over which primary care environment would be the most suitable and the criteria for a positive screen and referral. Further research is needed in the form of clinical trials or demonstration studies in primary care. The impact on secondary care, the role of auxiliaries and training needs also need to be determined. In addition, the assessment of adjunctive aids and evaluation of potential biomarkers are considered important.

The paper highlights the pros and cons of a national programme for screening for oral cancer. It provides an overview of screening methods and the metrics used to evaluate a screening programme. It then reviews the evidence for mouth cancer screening against the criteria of the United Kingdom National Screening Committee.

IntroductionIn the UK, National Health Service (NHS) guidelines recommend that informal carers of people living with dementia should be offered training to help them develop care skills and manage their own physical and mental health. The WHO recommends access to affordable, proven, well-designed, online technologies for education, skills training and support for dementia carers. In response to these recommendations, this multisite randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the first study in the UK to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online support programme developed by the WHO called ‘iSupport for dementia carers’.Methods and analysis350 informal carers (age 18+ years) living in Britain who self-identify as experiencing stress and depression will be recruited. They will be randomised to receive ‘iSupport’, or standardised information about caring for someone with dementia (control–comparison). Data will be collected via videoconferencing (eg, Zoom) or telephone interview at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis will ascertain effectiveness in the primary outcomes (distress and depression) and combined cost, and quality-adjusted life-year data will be used to assess cost-effectiveness compared with usual care from a public sector and wider societal perspective. A mixed-methods process evaluation with a subgroup of carers in the intervention (~N=50) will explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing ‘iSupport’. A non-randomised feasibility study will adapt ‘iSupport’ for young carers (n=38 participants, age 11–17 years).Ethics and disseminationThe research plan was scrutinised by National Institute for Health Research reviewers ahead of funding being awarded. Ethical approval was granted by Bangor University’s School of Health and Medical Sciences Academic Ethics Committee, reference number 2021-16915. Dissemination plans include delivering events for stakeholders, social media, a project website, developing policy briefings, presenting at conferences and producing articles for open access publications.Trial registration numberISRCTN17420703.

There is uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy, particularly the relative rate of complications of the two procedures. While uptake of laparoscopic hysterectomy has been slow, the situation is changing with greater familiarity, better training, better equipment and increased proficiency in the technique. Thus, a large, robust, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare contemporary laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal hysterectomy to determine the safest and most cost-effective technique. A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. A within trial-based economic evaluation will explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. We will aim to recruit 3250 women requiring a hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition and who were suitable for either laparoscopic or open techniques. The primary outcome is major complications up to six completed weeks postsurgery and the key secondary outcome is time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation is to be cost per QALY at 12 months' postsurgery. A secondary analysis is to be undertaken to generate costs per major surgical complication avoided and costs per return to normal activities. The study was approved by the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee, 18 February 2021 (Ethics ref: 21/WM/0019). REC approval for the protocol version 2.0 dated 2 February 2021 was issued on 18 February 2021.We will present the findings in national and international conferences. We will also aim to publish the findings in high impact peer-reviewed journals. We will disseminate the completed paper to the Department of Health, the Scientific Advisory Committees of the RCOG, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) and the BSGE. ISRCTN14566195.

Background Dental service provision in the care home sector is poor, with little emphasis on prevention. Emerging evidence suggests that the use of Dental Care Professionals (dental therapists and dental nurses) as an alternative to dentists has the potential to improve preventive advice, the provision of care and access to services within care homes. However, robust empirical evidence from definitive trials on how to successfully implement and sustain these interventions within care homes is currently lacking. The aim of the study is to determine whether Dental Care Professionals could reduce plaque levels of dentate older adults (65 + years) residing in care homes. Methods This protocol describes a two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial that will be undertaken in care homes across Wales, Northern Ireland and England. In the intervention arm, the dental therapists will visit the care homes every 6 months to assess and then treat eligible residents, where necessary. All treatment will be conducted within their Scope of Practice. Dental nurses will visit the care homes every month for the first 3 months and then three-monthly afterwards to promulgate advice to improve the day-to-day prevention offered to residents by carers. The control arm will be ‘treatment as usual’. Eligible care homes ( n  = 40) will be randomised based on a 1:1 ratio (20 intervention and 20 control), with an average of seven residents recruited in each home resulting in an estimated sample of 280. Assessments will be undertaken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months and will include a dental examination and quality of life questionnaires. Care home staff will collect weekly information on the residents’ oral health (e.g. episodes of pain and unscheduled care). The primary outcome will be a binary classification of the mean reduction in Silness-Löe Plaque Index at 6 months. A parallel process evaluation will be undertaken to explore the intervention’s acceptability and how it could be embedded in standard practice (described in a separate paper), whilst a cost-effectiveness analysis will examine the potential long-term costs and benefits of the intervention. Discussion This trial will provide evidence on how to successfully implement and sustain a Dental Care Professional-led intervention within care homes to promote access and prevention. Trial registration ISRCTN16332897 . Registered on 3 December 2021.