Scoping review identifies barriers and interventions for improving oral health in children in out-of-home care, suggesting a multi-level approach.
Introduction Children and young people in out‐of‐home care (OOHC) experience disproportionate oral health problems despite numerous initiatives to improve the oral health of children. This scoping review aimed to summarise the existing literature on barriers and facilitators to oral healthcare for children and young people in OOHC, as well as preventative interventions involving carers within the broader care system that aim to improve their oral health. Materials and Methods The review followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and adapted for six databases. The included studies were charted and categorised according to the socioecological model for health promotion. Results A total of 44 publications were included, which identified barriers ( n = 27), facilitators ( n = 26) and interventions ( n = 13). The socioecological model framed the analysis. The intrapersonal level identified individual characteristics of children and young people affecting oral health or hygiene. The interpersonal level highlighted the role of carers in promoting oral health attitudes and practices among children and young people, as well as the roles of statutory child protection practitioners, dentists and nondental health professionals in supporting carers to access timely and appropriate dental services. At the institution level, which included both health services and OOHC settings, interagency coordination, clear communication channels and systems improved service delivery. The policy level suggested the need for specific funding, models and policies to ensure the accessibility of dental services for children in OOHC. The interventions that were identified primarily focused on short‐term oral health education and training for carers. Conclusion Sustainable improvements in oral outcomes for children and young people in OOHC require a multilevel approach that includes tailored education for foster carers, trauma‐informed dental services, streamlined priority pathways and supportive policies. Future research will also need ongoing evaluations to monitor the long‐term effectiveness of these interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
George et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: