Topical fluoride hesitancy among caregivers: Development of a content-valid topical fluoride hesitancy identification item pool

Psychometric properties of the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT)

INTRODUCTION

Some caregivers are hesitant about topical fluoride for their children despite evidence that fluoride prevents caries and is safe. Recent work described a five domain model of caregivers' topical fluoride hesitancy. We developed the Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT) item pool based on the model. This study sought to evaluate the FHIT's psychometric properties in an effort to generate a short, simple to score, reliable, and valid tool that measures caregivers' topical fluoride hesitancy.

METHODS

In 2021 and 2022, we conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of caregivers, collecting data from two independent caregiver samples (n1 = 523; n2 = 612). The FHIT item pool included 33 items. We used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine whether the FHIT items measured five separate domains as hypothesized and to reduce the number of items. We then fit item response theory (IRT) models and computed Cronbach's alpha for each domain. Last, we examined the construct validity of the FHIT and evaluated scoring approaches.

RESULTS

After dropping 8 items, CFA supported a five factor model of topical fluoride hesitancy, with no cross-loadings (RMSEA = 0.079; SRMR = 0.057; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.98). We further reduced the items to four per domain (20 items total). Marginal alphas showed that the item sets provided reliability of ≥0.90 at hesitancy levels at and above average. The domains correlated more strongly with each other and topical fluoride refusal than with other questions on the survey.

DISCUSSION

Our results support the FHIT's ability to reliably and validly measure five domains of topical fluoride hesitancy using the average score of the four items in each domain.

Development and psychometric analysis: Fluoride varnish parent attitude, belief scale

OBJECTIVE

To develop a scale to determine parents' attitudes and beliefs regarding fluoride varnish.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study had a cross-sectional design and was conducted between 2019 and 2021. A total of 810 parents were included in the study sample. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), discriminant validity, and convergent validity methods were used to estimate the scale validity. For reliability, the Cronbach alpha coefficient, item-total correlation coefficients, and test-retest method were used.

RESULTS

As a result of psychometric analysis, the scale was found to have a three-factor structure. The factor loads of the items were between 0.838 and 0.715. The three-factor construct showed a good fit in confirmatory factor analysis (X2 (41): 110.06, p <.001; RMSEA: 0.065; RMSR, 0.02; GFI, 0.95; and NFI, 0.94). Cronbach's α coefficient on the scale was 0.85. The item-total correlation of the scale was found to be between 0.355 and 0.626. The test-retest intra-class correlation coefficient of the scale was 0.72.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the developed scale is a reliable tool to evaluate the attitudes and beliefs of parents toward fluoride varnish. It is thought that the scale will make a contribution to public health.

A Mixed-Methods Study on Topical Fluoride Beliefs and Refusal Behaviors for Caregivers of Children with Special Health Care Needs

OBJECTIVE

To understand topical fluoride-related beliefs and refusal behaviors for caregivers of children with special health care needs (CSHCN).

METHODS

This was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. For the quantitative analyses, we surveyed 520 caregivers to (a) compare fluoride-related beliefs between caregivers of CSHCN and caregivers of healthy children and (b) evaluate the association between special health care need (SHCN) status and topical fluoride refusal. We used logistic regression models to generate unadjusted odds ratios, confounder-adjusted odds ratios (AOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For the qualitative analyses, we interviewed 56 caregivers who refused or were hesitant about topical fluoride. Data were coded deductively and compared by SHCN status to an existing conceptual model of topical fluoride refusal.

RESULTS

In the quantitative analysis, 41.3% of caregivers refused or thought about refusing topical fluoride. There were no significant differences in fluoride beliefs by SHCN status (p-values > 0.05) nor was there a significant association between SHCN status and topical fluoride refusal (AOR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.37-1.14; p = 0.13). In the qualitative analysis, the relative importance of each domain of the conceptual model was similar between the caregiver groups. Two differences were that all caregivers of CSHCN thought fluoride was unnecessary and wanted to keep chemicals out of their child's body.

CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE

While caregivers of CSHCN were not more likely to refuse topical fluoride than caregivers of healthy children, there may be important differences in the underlying reasons for refusing topical fluoride.