OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of school dental screening programmes on overall oral health status and use of dental services.

SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 15 October 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; cluster- or individually randomised) that evaluated school dental screening compared with no intervention, or that compared two different types of screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS: The previous version of this review included seven RCTs, and our updated search identified one additional trial. Therefore, this update included eight trials (six cluster-RCTs) with 21,290 children aged 4 to 15 years. Four trials were conducted in the UK, two in India, one in the USA and one in Saudi Arabia. We rated two trials at low risk of bias, three at high risk of bias and three at unclear risk of bias.  No trials had long-term follow-up to ascertain the lasting effects of school dental screening. The trials assessed outcomes at 3 to 11 months of follow-up. No trials reported the proportion of children with treated or untreated oral diseases other than caries. Neither did they report on cost-effectiveness or adverse events. Four trials evaluated traditional screening versus no screening. We performed a meta-analysis for the outcome 'dental attendance' and found an inconclusive result with high heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was partly due to study design (three cluster-RCTs and one individually randomised trial). Due to this inconsistency, and unclear risk of bias, we downgraded the evidence to very low certainty, and we are unable to draw conclusions about this comparison. Two cluster-RCTs (both four-arm trials) evaluated criteria-based screening versus no screening, suggesting a possible small benefit (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference when comparing criteria-based screening to traditional screening (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared a specific (personalised) referral letter to a non-specific letter. Results favoured the specific referral letter for increasing attendance at general dentist services (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence) and attendance at specialist orthodontist services (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared screening supplemented with motivation to screening alone. Dental attendance was more likely after screening supplemented with motivation (RR 3.08, 95% CI 2.57 to 3.71; very low-certainty evidence). One trial compared referral to a specific dental treatment facility with advice to attend a dentist. There was no evidence of a difference in dental attendance between these two referrals (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.47; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial reported the proportion of children with treated dental caries. This trial evaluated a post-screening referral letter based on the common-sense model of self-regulation (a theoretical framework that explains how people understand and respond to threats to their health), with or without a dental information guide, compared to a standard referral letter. The findings were inconclusive. Due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, we assessed the evidence as very low certainty.

Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in year 2017 in Selangor, Malaysia among 719 parents/guardians of primary school children. The parent/guardians were randomly assigned as the intervention groups and were given a health educational Be-SAFE booklet on drowning prevention and water safety. The pretest was conducted before the intervention and posttest was done one month of intervention. The data collection tool was using a validated questionnaire on knowledge, attitude and practice for drowning prevention and water safety.

Results: There were 719 respondents (response rate of 89.9%) participated at baseline and 53.7% at end line (after the intervention). Significant differences found in knowledge, attitudes and practice on drowning prevention and water safety for the intervention and control groups after the intervention (P<0.001). There was a significant difference in mean scores for knowledge and attitude before and after the intervention, whereas no significant findings noted for practices (P<0.001).

METHODS: Using the Triandis model of social behaviour as our framework, we conducted key informant interviews with parents and healthcare providers. Trained interviewers conducted interviews with nine parents, recruited via purposive sampling. These parents were parents of preterm infants who had been introduced to KMC. Data was transcribed and analysed based on Triandis' Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour. This paper only reports the results of the parent interviews.

RESULTS: Major findings were how positive feelings like warmth and contentment, the sense of parenthood with KMC, the benefits of KMC for their infant and parents being enablers for KMC uptake. Conversely, the lack of KMC awareness, the initial negative feelings such as fear, uncertainty and embarrassment, the prioritization of time for milk expression, overcrowding in the ward, lack of space and privacy, limited visiting hours, lack of support and poor communication resulting in misapprehension about KMC were major barriers.

CONCLUSION: A deeper understanding of the factors influencing the uptake of KMC using the Triandis behavioural model provided a way forward to help improve its uptake and sustainability in our settings.