Cross-sectional study shows focus group discussions improve oral health in children with special needs, indicating a need for tailored care.
Context: Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) emphasizes not only prolonging life but also enhancing health and quality. Children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN) encounter numerous barriers to dental care, necessitating tailored healthcare strategies. Adaptation of conventional protocols is essential, and focus group discussions (FGDs) have shown potential as an effective approach. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the OHRQoL of CSHCNs and assess the role of FGDs in improving their oral health. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 6–14-year-old SHCNs children. Ethical approval was obtained, and informed parental consent was secured. Fifty participants were recruited through convenience sampling. Data collection included: (1) qualitative assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire and (2) quantitative assessment using the Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S) in three phases: baseline recording, regular FGDs with mobile networking, and motivational strategy and education were done. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25; a paired t -test was applied for OHI-S score comparison ( P < 0.005). Results: The mean participant age was 10.14 ± 2.08 years (62% of males and 38% of females). OHIP-14 domain mean scores were functional limitation –4.42 ± 1.37, functional disorder –4.30 ± 1.24, psychological disorder –4.26 ± 1.17, functional disability –4.96 ± 1.69, psychological disability –4.66 ± 1.49, and social disability –5.24 ± 1.93. The OHI-S mean scores improved significantly from 2.71 ± 0.69 to 1.90 ± 0.71 ( P = 0.001). Conclusion: CSHCNs exhibited compromised OHRQoL. FGDs significantly improved oral hygiene, demonstrating potential for preventive oral health programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goyal et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: