IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0322027.html

Topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are significantly and positively associated: A cross-sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Lim
  • Adam C Carle
  • Richard M Carpiano
  • Donald L Chi

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate the associations between topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition to determine if hesitancy is a potential precursor to opposition. We administered an 85-item survey (11/2020-09/2021) to 1,135 caregivers that included the 20-item, 5-domain Fluoride Hesitancy Identification Tool (FHIT), from which we created five domain-specific scores of topical fluoride hesitancy (none/moderate/high for each domain); a score reflecting any topical fluoride hesitancy (moderate/high on any of the five domains); and a topical fluoride hesitancy severity score (total number of moderate/high responses to the five domains; range 0–5). The survey measured degree of topical fluoride opposition (0–10 with no = 0 and yes ≥ 1). We ran confounder-adjusted logistic regression models to evaluate associations between topical fluoride hesitancy scores and opposition. The analyses included 1,042 caregivers; mean age was 42.0 years (SD: 8.3), 78.7% were woman, and 58.3% were white. General hesitancy was reported by 82.9% of surveyed caregivers. Domain-specific hesitancy prevalence (moderate/high) was 81.3% for the necessity domain, 31.3% for chemicals, 19.5% for harm, 30.1% for uncertainty, and 25.2% for distrust. For severity, 14.7% of caregivers reported moderate/high hesitancy for all 5 domains, 7.7% for 4, 6.8% for 3, 9.3% for 2, and 43.9% for 1 domain. Opposition was reported by 39.1%. In the regression models, every hesitancy measure had a statistically significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Lim & Adam C Carle & Richard M Carpiano & Donald L Chi, 2025. "Topical fluoride hesitancy and opposition are significantly and positively associated: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0322027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0322027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angelo Fasce & Philipp Schmid & Dawn L. Holford & Luke Bates & Iryna Gurevych & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2023. "A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(9), pages 1462-1480, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amelia Blamey & Ilan Noy, 2024. "Mistrust and Missed Shots: Trust and Covid-19 Vaccination Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 11134, CESifo.
    2. Karl O Mäki & Linda C Karlsson & Johanna K Kaakinen & Philipp Schmid & Stephan Lewandowsky & Jan Antfolk & Anna Soveri, 2024. "COVID-19 and influenza vaccine-hesitancy subgroups," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(7), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Liu, Yang & Zuo, Yuxiao, 2025. "Implementing intelligent manufacturing policies to increase the total factor productivity in manufacturing: Transmission mechanisms through construction of industrial chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    4. Nickl, Pietro Leonardo & Sultan, Mubashir & Stinson, Caedyn & Stock, Friederike & Hertwig, Ralph & Kozyreva, Anastasia, 2025. "Global Crisis or Overblown Problem? Three Tools to Clarify Contentious Issues in Misinformation Research," SocArXiv 4vhwq_v1, Center for Open Science.
    5. Kevin Winter & Matthew J. Hornsey & Lotte Pummerer & Kai Sassenberg, 2024. "Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Dawn Holford & Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez & Angelo Fasce & Linda C. Karlsson & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2024. "Identifying the underlying psychological constructs from self-expressed anti-vaccination argumentation," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0322027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.