THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN WATER FLUORIDATION: PUBLIC HEALTH
CHAMPIONS OR ANTI-FLUORIDATION FREEDOM FIGHTERS?

G B Hastings, K Hughes, S Lawther and R J Lowry
Glasgow, Scotland and Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

Abstract from British Dental Journal 184 (1) 39-41 1998

Objective: Using the opportunity of pretesting a leaflet for the general public on water fluoridation, their views were also sought on the issue as a whole.

Design: Qualitative research using focus group discussions led by an experienced moderator. Setting: Among the general public living in north east England.

Subjects: Members of the public living in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in three age bands (20-35, 36-50 and 50+) and by social class.

Results: The study found: the low priority given to dental health; how emotive the subject of water is; the variable knowledge of fluoride in relation to dental and general health; and the desire for information if new water fluoridation schemes are planned.

Conclusions: The research confirmed public support for water fluoridation but highlighted the place of public health professionals in championing water fluoridation because of public apathy.

Abstracts and Comments    Fluoride 31 (3) 1998

COMMENT

The British Dental Journal's acceptance of the above paper, which merely describes canvassing of opinions about artificial water fluoridation and pretesting of a propaganda poster, is surprising, particularly because the conclusions drawn are based on a non-random selected sample size of between 48 and 64 people. The use of the Social Marketing Department of the University of Strathclyde, where three of the authors work, is a novel approach to the controversial issue of water fluoridation, which one could reasonably expect to be settled by scientific discussion.

Bill Wilson
118 Forrest Hill Road
North Shore City, New Zealand

List of some other publications

Eastell R, Boyle IT, Compston J et al. Management of male osteoporosis - Report of the UK Consensus Group [Review]. Quarterly Journal of Medicine of the Association of Physicians 91 (2) 71-92 1998. (Concludes that bisphosphonates are the treatment of choice, with sodium fluoride and anabolic steroids as alternatives.) Reprints: R Eastell, North General Hospital, Centre for Clinical Sciences, Herries Rd, Sheffield S5 7AU, S Yorkshire, England.

Arnold CM, Bailey DA, Faulkner RA et al. The effect of water fluoridation on the bone mineral density of young women. Canadian Journal of Public Health (Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique) 88 (6) 388-391 1997. (A positive effect is suggested, from a comparison of small atypical samples from two communities.) Reprints: C M Arnold, University of Saskatchewan, School of Physiotherapy, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W3 Canada.

Lane JM. Osteoporosis - Medical prevention and treatment. Spine 22 (24 Suppl) S32-37 1997. (Suggests fluoride therapy for low bone turnover cases.) Reprints: J M Lane, Hospital for Special Surgery, Osteoporosis Prevention Center, 535 E 70th St, New York, NY 10021, USA.

Lawrence HP, Sheiham A. Caries progression in 12- to 16-year-old schoolchildren in fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas in Brazil. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 25 (6) 402-411 1997. (A non-blind study reporting slower progression in 183 from fluoridated central Rio de Janeiro than in 107 from other, "fluoride-deficient", districts on the outskirts. In a further, similar, study on pp 412-418 of the same journal, the authors report radiographic detection of "subtle differences" in progression in the two areas.)

Reprints: H P Lawrence, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, CB 7450 Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

FLUORIDE 31(3) 1998,  p. 152	International Society for Fluoride Research
	Home | Table of Contents | ISFR Board | Subscription Submissions | Announcements | Authors | Subject Index