ReviewCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology2025
The Political Determinants of Oral Health Inequalities: Lessons in Policy Development and Implementation From Six Case Studies.
Review in Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Dentistry and Public Health Surveillance: Opportunities and Challenges.Public health challenges · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOral diseases are the most prevalent diseases globally, affecting almost half of the world's population with a disproportionate burden on the most vulnerable groups. Despite growing attention on the social and commercial determinants of health, there is still a largely unexplored area in understanding the political determinants of health and oral health. The aim of this paper is to describe national policy development processes for policies impacting population oral health.
methodsA multiple case study approach was used to analyse six case studies focused on national policy development processes targeting oral health. Kingdon's Multiple Streams Model was used to examine how problems, policy solutions, and political factors aligned to influence policymaking.
resultsSome of the most common barriers to policy adoption and implementation were misinformation strategies, legal challenges, industry lobbying, ideological opposition to state intervention, and lack of transparency regarding conflicts of interest. Important common facilitators included robust scientific evidence presented in an accessible manner to the appropriate audiences, identification of key decision-makers, support from parties from across the political spectrum, intersectoral collaboration, and ongoing policy monitoring and evaluation.
conclusionsThis study provides novel insights into how political determinants influence social and commercial determinants of health, demonstrating how political contexts and power dynamics shape national public health policy development processes. Understanding these dynamics is essential for ensuring that evidence-based public health interventions are politically feasible and resilient to opposition from certain private industry and ideological interests. In a time of growing inequalities, neutrality in the face of structural injustice risks entrenching a status quo that favours those with the greatest influence. To address these problems sustainably, public health practitioners must recognise and engage with the political nature of policymaking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.