Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Systematic overview of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines: assessment and prevention of behavioural risk factors associated with oral cancer to inform dental professionals in primary care dental practices

Evidence-Based Dentistry (2022)Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 24 June 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Aims/objectives Tobacco and alcohol are recognised as the major modifiable risk factors for oral cancer, the incidence of which is rising globally and predicted to increase. This paper aimed to: 1) appraise and synthesise best practice evidence for assessing the major behavioural risk factors for oral cancer and delivering behaviour change interventions (for example, advice, counselling, signposting/referral to preventive services); and 2) assess appropriateness for implementation by dental professionals in primary care.

Methods A systematic overview was undertaken of systematic reviews and international clinical guidelines. This involved: systematically searching and collating the international literature on assessing oral cancer risk and delivering preventive interventions within primary care; quality appraising and assessing the risk of bias using validated tools; synthesising the evidence for best practice; and assessing application of key findings to the dental setting.

Results and conclusions There is clear evidence for the effectiveness of a 'brief', in-person, motivational intervention for sustained tobacco abstinence or reduced alcohol consumption, following risk factor assessment. Evidence for combined behavioural interventions is lacking. There is no firm conclusion with regards to optimal duration of brief interventions (range 5-20 minutes). For tobacco users, longer (10-20 minutes) and intensive (more than 20 minutes, with follow-up visits) interventions are more effective in increasing quit rates compared to no intervention; very brief (less than five minutes) interventions in a single session show comparable effectiveness to the longer/more intensive interventions. For alcohol users, 10-15-minute multi-contact interventions were most effective, compared to no intervention or very brief (less than five minutes) intervention or intensive intervention; brief interventions of five-minute duration were equally effective. There is limited direct evidence from the dental practice setting (one high-quality systematic review relating to tobacco prevention and none relating to alcohol). Thus, very brief, or brief advice of up to five minutes, should be trialled for tobacco and alcohol respectively in a dental practice setting, after risk assessment tailored to patient motivational status. Exploring delivery by the dental team is supported, as effectiveness was generally independent of primary care provider.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Shield K D, Ferlay J, Jemal A et al. The global incidence of lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers by subsite in 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67: 51-64.

  2. Conway D I, Purkayastha M, Chestnutt I G. The changing epidemiology of oral cancer: definitions, trends, and risk factors. Br Dent J 2018; 225: 867.

  3. Winn D, Lee Y C, Hashibe M, Boffetta P. The INHANCE consortium: toward a better understanding of the causes and mechanisms of head and neck cancer. Oral Dis 2015; 21: 685-693.

  4. Gillison M L, Chaturvedi A K, Anderson W F, Fakhry C. Epidemiology of human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 3235.

  5. IARC. International Agency for Research on Cancer working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking v.83. Lyon: World Health Organisation, 2004.

  6. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans - Volume 96: Alcoholic drinking. Lyon: World Health Organisation, 2007.

  7. Sheiham A, Watt R G. The common risk factor approach: a rational basis for promoting oral health. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000; 28: 399-406.

  8. Petersen P E. Oral cancer prevention and control-the approach of the World Health Organisation. Oral Oncol 2009; 45: 454-460.

  9. Carr A B, Ebbert J. Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005084.pub3.

  10. Ramseier C A, Suvan J E. Behaviour change counselling for tobacco use cessation and promotion of healthy lifestyles: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 Suppl 16: S47-S58.

  11. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1225-1230.

  12. Kaner E F S, Dickinson H O, Beyer F R et al. Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004148.pub3.

  13. Lindson-Hawley N, Thompson Tom P, Begh R. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006936.pub3.

  14. World Health Organisation. WHO framework convention on tobacco control: report of the first sub-regional awareness raising workshop: Kathmandu, Nepal, 18-19 March 2004. Regional Office for South East Asia: World Health Organisation, 2004.

  15. World Health Organisation. Public health problems caused by harmful use of alcohol: Report by the Secretariat. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2005.

  16. Mathur S, Conway D I, Worlledge-Andrew H, Macpherson L M D, Ross A J. Assessment and prevention of behavioural and social risk factors associated with oral cancer: protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and systematic reviews to inform Primary Care dental professionals. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1.

  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269.

  18. SDCEP. Prevention and treatment of periodontal diseases in primary care: Dental Clinical Guidance. Dundee: Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme, 2014.

  19. Shea B J, Grimshaw J M, Wells G A et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.

  20. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins J P et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 225-234.

  21. AGREE Next Steps Consortium. The AGREE II instrument (electronic version). 2009. Available at https://www.agreetrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/AGREE-II-Users-Manual-and-23-item-Instrument_2009_UPDATE_2013.pdf (accessed November 2021).

  22. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. 2006. Available at https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf (accessed November 2021).

  23. CRD. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009.

  24. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

  25. ADAPTE Collaboration. The ADAPTE process: resource toolkit for guideline adaptation (version 2.0). 2009. Available at https://g-i-n.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ADAPTE-Resource-toolkit-March-2010.pdf (accessed November 2021).

  26. Dijkers M. Duplicate publications and systematic reviews: problems and proposals. 2018. Available at https://ktdrr.org/products/update/v6n2/dijkers_ktupdate_v6n2-508.pdf (accessed November 2021).

  27. Macpherson L M D, McCann M F, Gibson J, Binnie V I, Stephen K W. The role of primary healthcare professionals in oral cancer prevention and detection. Br Dent J 2003; 195: 277-281.

  28. Shepherd S, Young L, Clarkson J E, Bonetti D, Ogden G R. General dental practitioner views on providing alcohol related health advice: an exploratory study. Br Dent J 2010; 208: 5.

  29. Amemori M, Michie S, Korhonen T, Murtomaa H, Kinnunen T H. Assessing implementation difficulties in tobacco use prevention and cessation counselling among dental providers. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 50.

  30. Yusuf H, Tsakos G, Ntouva A et al. Differences by age and sex in general dental practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in delivering prevention. Br Dent J 2015; 219: E7.

  31. Dyer T A, Robinson P G. General health promotion in general dental practice - the involvement of the dental team. Part 1: a review of the evidence of effectiveness of brief public health interventions. Br Dent J 2006; 200: 679-685.

  32. McAuley A, Goodall C A, Ogden G R, Shepherd S, Cruikshank K. Delivering alcohol screening and alcohol brief interventions within general dental practice: rationale and overview of the evidence. Br Dent J 2011; 210: E15.

  33. Goldstein M G, Whitlock E P, DePue J. Multiple behavioural risk factor interventions in primary care. Summary of research evidence. Am J Prev Med 2004; 27(2 Suppl): 61-79.

  34. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Behaviour change: individual approaches. 2014. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph49/resources/behaviour-change-individual-approaches-pdf-1996366337989 (accessed November 2021).

  35. Fiore M C, Jaen C R, Baker T B et al. Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.

  36. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: preventing harmful drinking. 2014. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph24/evidence/alcoholuse-disorders-preventing-harmful-drinking-evidence-update-pdf-67327165 (accessed November 2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study is ethically approved by the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences Ethics Committee. We gratefully acknowledge the input and feedback provided by John Gibson, Andrea Sherriff, Heather Worlledge-Andrew and Naeema Al-Balushi. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of any of the funders or organisations they represent. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015025289.

Funding

The project has received funding from NHS Education for Scotland and the Glasgow Dental Educational Trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiser Permanente Centre for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA

    Sweta Mathur

  2. School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, University of Glasgow, UK

    David I. Conway, Lorna M. D. Macpherson & Alastair J. Ross

Authors
  1. Sweta Mathur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David I. Conway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lorna M. D. Macpherson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alastair J. Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SM wrote the first draft of the manuscript, with feedback from other authors. SM, AJR, DIC and LMDM participated in the study design, development, refinement of the methodological approach, quality appraisal and synthesis. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sweta Mathur.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mathur, S., Conway, D., Macpherson, L. et al. Systematic overview of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines: assessment and prevention of behavioural risk factors associated with oral cancer to inform dental professionals in primary care dental practices. Evid Based Dent (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0235-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0235-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links