[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-317158-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-317158-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","q1-evidence-profile-recommendation-question-1","Q1 - Evidence Profile - Recommendation Question 1","","Evidence Profile for Recommendation Question 1 evaluates whether recommending an interprofessional approach to oral care improves outcomes for adults (18+) across multiple stakeholders. The profile specifies population, intervention, comparison (no interprofessional approach or usual care), outcomes, and settings including health service organizations and academic environments. Quality assessment summarizes study designs and risk of bias, reporting oral health status changes assessed with OHAT and plaque indices, frequency of oral care, provider/student knowledge and ability, and patient experience. Findings include trends toward improved oral care practice and measurable improvements in OHAT scores and plaque-related outcomes in included studies.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/q1-evidence-profile-recommendation-question-1/317158/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/q1-evidence-profile-recommendation-question-1/317158.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Melati","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-09-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does Recommendation Question 1 ask in this Evidence Profile?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Whether an interprofessional approach to oral care should be recommended to improve outcomes for persons, health providers, and students.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Who is included as the population in this Evidence Profile?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Adults aged 18 years and older.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How were oral health outcomes assessed?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Oral health status was assessed using validated OHAT and a modified Silness and Löe index to register plaque, with follow-up ranging from 7 days to 6 months depending on the study.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},317158,1790439836,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":111,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":118},962085570644,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Q1 Evidence Profile  \nRecommendation Question 1: Should an interprofessional approach to oral care be recommended to improve outcomes for persons, health providers and students?  \nPopulation: Adults 18 years of age and older  \nIntervention: Interprofessional approach to oral care  \nComparison: No interprofessional approach to oral care or usual care.  \nOutcomes: Person’s oral health status, frequency of oral care , knowledge and ability of health providers and students to provide oral care, person’s experience with oral health  \nSetting: Health service organizations and academic settings  \nBibliography: 97, 106, 170, 564, 582, 923, 1206, 1219, 1471, 2401, 2424  \n\n| Quality assessment |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |  |  | |  | \u003Cbr>Summary of Findings |  Certainty |  |  References |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| № of studies | Study design | Risk of bias |  |  |  Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | \u003Cbr>Other considerations |  Country  |  |  Intervention Description  | \u003Cbr>Interprofessional Approach \u003Cbr>No Interprofessional Approach |  | \u003Cbr>Reported effects/outcomes |  |  |  |\n| \u003Cbr>Person’s oral health status (assessed with: Validated OHAT, Modified Silness and Loe index to register plaque ) (Follow up: 7 days to 6 months) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2 | Quasi\u003Cbr>experim\u003Cbr>ental |  | Serious\u003Cbr>a |  | Not Serious | Serious b\u003Cbr>| Serious c | None | 1219 | \u003Cbr>1219:\u003Cbr>The oral health of patients with and without dysphagia was assessed by an SLP using the OHAT. Nurses then provided oral care, including twice daily brushing and mouth rinsing.\u003Cbr>1471: Education about guidelines provided by dental, pharmacist and SLP to medical and nursing staff, including importance of OH, intro of OHAT, how to refer patients. intro of detailed OHAT for nursing staff, stocking of oral health products recommended by guidelines, dev of an oral\u003Cbr>care treatment and referral process; OHAT contained suggested treatment or action for unhealthy oral health conditions; care escalated to medical and/or dental team when issue difficult to manage |  | 1219:\u003Cbr>Baseline:\u003Cbr>N (dysphagia) = 12/89\u003Cbr>N (no dysphagia)=77/89\u003Cbr>7-day follow-up: N (dysphagia) = 12/89\u003Cbr>N (no dysphagia) = | 1219: No comparator | Both included studies involved an intervention to increase oral care practice in care settings by care staff.\u003Cbr>Both studies demonstrated positive trend towards improved oral health care. Study 1219 observed statistical significance in the dysphagic sub-group and non-statistical significance in the nondysphagic group. Study 1471 observed statistical significance in oral health outcome. | | |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | and 1471: |  |  |  | 1471: No comparator |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Australia\u003Cbr>|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | \u003Cbr>77/89\u003Cbr>With Dysphagia:\u003Cbr>Median OHAT 4 (0-10) at baseline vs. Median OHAT 3 (1-6) at 7-days, p=0.024\u003Cbr>Without Dysphagia: Median OHAT 2(0-8) at baseline vs. Median OHAT 2 (0-9) at 7-days, p=.282\u003Cbr>1471:\u003Cbr>N= 73 in pre-intervention group and postintervention group\u003Cbr>Pre-Intervention: mean total OHAT inc. from baseline to 10-14 days after admission (2 .42- |  |  |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n| Quality assessment |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |  |  | |  | \u003Cbr>Summary of Findings |  Certainty |  |  References |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| № of studies |  | Study design | Risk of bias |  Inconsistency | Indirectness |  | | \u003Cbr>Other considerations |  |  Country  |  |  Intervention Description | \u003Cbr>Interprofessional Approach | | \u003Cbr>Reported effects/outcomes |  |  |  |\n|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2.64, p = 0.33)\u003Cbr>Post-intervention: mean\u003Cbr>\u003Cbr>total OHAT decreased","cbCain7pQaS9eEBL","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCain7pQaS9eEBL","pdf",796311,"English","# Recommendation Question 1\n## Population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and setting\n## Quality assessment and summary of findings","[{\"question\":\"What does Recommendation Question 1 ask in this Evidence Profile?\",\"answer\":\"Whether an interprofessional approach to oral care should be recommended to improve outcomes for persons, health providers, and students.\"},{\"question\":\"Who is included as the population in this Evidence Profile?\",\"answer\":\"Adults aged 18 years and older.\"},{\"question\":\"How were oral health outcomes assessed?\",\"answer\":\"Oral health status was assessed using validated OHAT and a modified Silness and Löe index to register plaque, with follow-up ranging from 7 days to 6 months depending on the study.\"}]","Q1 - Evidence Profile - Recommendation Question 1 | PDF",1789929320]