Shared decision-making (SDM) in dentistry: A concise narrative review

Thematic analysis of perceptions from both patients and dental students on a digital clinical decision aid in prosthodontics: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of utilizing an innovative and comprehensive patient-centered digital clinical decision aid designed to facilitate shared decision-making in missing tooth replacement between dental students and their patients.

METHODS

A qualitative study using interview approach was conducted in Hong Kong SAR and Malaysia. Thirty dental undergraduate students, each with one patient from the Faculty of Dentistry at The University of Hong Kong (n = 15) and Universiti Teknologi MARA (n = 15), were introduced to a digitally designed decision aid in missing tooth replacement prior to their treatment appointments. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each student and patient, adhering to the interview protocol. Each interview was audio-recorded, transcribed, and subsequently coded to investigate the perceptions and potential advantages of this decision aid.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified three key themes from the dental students' perspective: communication, utilization, and satisfaction. From patients' perceptions, four central themes emerged: communication, treatment information, uncertainty, and utilization. Detailed examination of the data highlighted an enhancement in patients' confidence and trust in their dental care providers, as well as a marked increase in both student and patient satisfaction levels upon implementing this novel approach. The average satisfaction rates for students were 83 % for Hong Kong SAR and 82 % for Malaysia.

CONCLUSION

This patient-centered clinical decision aid helped to enhance communication between dental students and patients in both regions, ultimately leading to heightened patient satisfaction levels. Nonetheless, to address the present study's limitations, future studies should consider diversifying participant backgrounds, including patients without prior treatment discussions with students.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinical decision aids are valuable tools in clinical teaching due to their enhancement of communication between clinicians and patients. They promote shared decision-making, leading to more personalized and evidence-driven treatment plans, ultimately improving patient care.

THE USAGE AND REPORTING OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and analyze the usage and reporting of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) within systematic reviews (SRs) published in 5 leading orthodontic journals between 2015 and 2023.

METHODS

A manual search was conducted to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) involved SRs published in selected journals between 2015 and 2023 from the official online archives. Two authors independently and in duplicate extracted the characteristics of each included SR, recording both the usage of dPROs in the Methods sections and the reporting of dPROs in the Results sections.

RESULTS

A total of 244 SRs were found eligible and included, of which 81 (33.2%) included dPROs. Out of the 81 SRs, 19 (23.5%) described dPROs in the Methods sections, 6 (7.4%) reported dPROs exclusively in the Results sections, and 56 (69.1%) included dPROs in both sections. In the 75 SRs that stated dPROs in their Methods sections, 38 (50.7%) identified them as primary outcomes, while 37 (49.3%) considered them secondary outcomes. Among the 62 SRs that reported dPROs in the Results section, 17 (27.4%) performed quantitative synthesis, and the remaining 45 (72.6%) conducted only qualitative synthesis. A total of 26 dPROMs were identified, of which only 11 were included in meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Only about one-third of SRs published in leading orthodontic journals included dPROs. It is recommended that researchers consider the usage of dPROs and dPROMs during the design and registration stages of orthodontic SRs and ensure transparent reporting of the results, thus facilitating evidence-based practice and shared decision-making in clinical care.

Development of a survey-based stacked ensemble predictive model for autonomy preferences in patients with periodontal disease

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop a model to predict the autonomy preference (AP) and satisfaction after tooth extraction (STE) in patients with periodontal disease. Understanding of individual AP and STE is essential for improving patient satisfaction and promoting informed decision-making in periodontics.

METHODS

A stacked ensemble machine learning model was used to predict patient AP and STE based on the results of a survey that included demographic information, oral health status, AP index, and STE. Data from 421 patients with periodontal disease were collected from two university dental hospitals and evaluated for ensemble modeling in the following predictive models: random forest, naïve Bayes, gradient boost, adaptive boost, and XGBoost.

RESULTS

The models demonstrated good predictive performance, with XGBoost demonstrating the highest accuracy for both AP (0.78) and STE (0.80). The results showed that only 7.6 % of patients had high AP, which tended to decrease with age and varied significantly according to education level and severity of treatment, categorized as supportive periodontal treatment, active periodontal treatment, or extraction and/or dental implant procedures. Additionally, the majority of patients (67.7 %) reported high STE levels, highlighting the effectiveness of the model in accurately predicting AP, which was further supported by the significant correlation between accurately predicted AP levels and high STE outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The successful utilization of a stacked ensemble model to predict patient AP and STE demonstrates the potential of machine learning to improve patient-centered care in periodontics. Future research should extend to more diverse patient populations and clinical conditions to validate and refine the predictive abilities of such models in broader healthcare settings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The machine learning-based predictive model effectively enhances personalized decision-making and improves patient satisfaction in periodontal treatment.

Shared decision making for patients needing dentofacial orthopedics, orthognathic surgery, and conventional non-surgical fixed appliance therapy: a comparison between Pakistani patients' and clinicians' perspective

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) involves presenting patients with relevant information about a health issue and reaching a clinical decision based on their preferences. However, its application in orthodontics lacks documentation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess and compare the perspectives of patients and clinicians on SDM in different cases.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan, involving 90 patients categorized into three groups (dentofacial orthopedics, orthognathic surgery, and conventional non-surgical fixed appliance treatment). Following clinical assessment and treatment plan discussions, patients and clinicians completed a 12-item dyadic observing patient involvement in decision making (OPTION) questionnaire, to gauge their perspectives on SDM. Mean OPTION scale scores were compared using paired sample t-tests between clinicians and patients, and intergroup comparisons utilized paired sample t-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

OPTION scores were similar between patients/parents and clinicians. However, statistically significant differences were found regarding the questions about "different sources of information", "different options (including the possibility of doing nothing)" and "concerns regarding management", with the patients giving overall lower OPTION scores. Patients gave lower SDM OPTION scores for conventional orthodontic treatment, but higher scores for orthopedic and orthognathic surgery, as compared to the clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed an overall consensus in the mean total scores of OPTION scales between patients and clinicians. However, when stratified, patients showed higher SDM scores for orthopedic and orthognathic cases, and lower scores for conventional orthodontic treatment.

Parental acceptance of Silver Diamine Fluoride in two lower-middle-income countries: Iran and Tajikistan

BACKGROUND

Using Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) may be an effective public health approach for managing dental caries in children. Parental acceptance of SDF has rarely been investigated in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to evaluate parental acceptance of SDF to manage dental caries in children aged 2-12 in Iran and Tajikistan.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Kurdistan province of Iran and Khatlon region of Tajikistan, 2022-2023. Parents watched a video about SDF and its weaknesses and strengths as compared to conventional approaches before completing the questionnaire. We also reported Prevalence Ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between parental acceptance and associated demographic factors as well as dental attitude and experience.

RESULTS

Participants were 245 and 160 parents in Iran and Tajikistan, respectively. In both countries, a majority (Iran: 61.6%, Tajikistan: 77.9%) accepted SDF over conventional treatments for all primary teeth. The majority also accepted SDF only for posterior permanent teeth (Iran: 73.5%, Tajikistan: 78.7%). Black discoloration was the main reason for rejecting SDF. Overall, demographic factors and dental experience and attitude were not significantly associated with SDF acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

SDF was widely accepted by Iranian and Tajik parents. Establishing parental acceptance of SDF is an important step toward its application in LMICs where inexpensive solutions are needed.

Geographic and Specialty-Specific Disparities in Physicians' Legal Compliance: A National-Scale Assessment of Romanian Medical Practice

BACKGROUND

Physicians must respect their patients' rights to informed consent, privacy, access to medical records, non-discrimination, treatment by a qualified doctor, and a second medical opinion. Compliance with patients' rights is mandatory, and legal breaches are considered medical malpractice under Romanian law. This is the first study to assess physicians' practices nationally and create a geographical map of legal compliance.

RESULTS

We examined survey responses of 2978 physicians, including 1587 general practitioners and 1391 attending physicians from high-risk specialties. According to the findings, 46.67% of physicians' practices adhered to the law. Physicians' practices were homogenous across the country's regions. General practitioners were significantly more legally compliant than attending physicians were. Additionally, 94.02% of the physicians acknowledged malpractice anxiety, whereas only 17.67% had been accused of malpractice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasize the need for further research and to voice issues about Romanian physicians' low level of legal compliance. This study provides a starting point for future studies to evaluate the benefits of interventional strategies in this field. Healthcare facilities should provide physicians with easily available resources when they are unsure about their legal obligations, and establish an observer organization that can detect unlawful conduct. Interventions should concentrate on education programs and expert guidance.

Clinical decision-making in complex endodontic cases between postgraduate students across dental specialties at a UK dental school: A pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Treatment decisions for a heavily restored endodontically treated tooth vary amongst clinicians owing to multitude of factors. This phenomenon not only often poses dilemmas to clinicians of different clinical backgrounds, but also exerts a degree of treatment difficulty to the treating clinician. Previous studies indicated that specialty training and clinical experience significantly impacted clinical decision-making process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Master of Science postgraduate students in endodontics, prosthodontics, periodontics, oral surgery and implantology participated in a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The dental specialties were further categorised into restorative and surgical dentistry. A multiple-choice questionnaire with three clinical cases was distributed to the students. Data were analysed for trends using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

There was a 44% response rate; the majority of respondents were from restorative dentistry specialties. Cases 1 and 2 were rated as moderate to high difficulty, and Case 3 was predominantly rated as high difficulty with procedure predictability being the main factor affecting their clinical decision-making in three cases. Endodontic retreatment was selected as the preferred treatment in Cases 1 and 2 and periradicular surgery in Case 3. The students were fairly confident in managing Cases 1 and 2, but not in Case 3. Referral patterns were consistent in Cases 1 and 2 with endodontists being the first choice of referral except for Case 3 where 48% preferred to refer to oral surgeons and 35% choosing endodontists. Some indication of differences between specialties were noted throughout. Years in practice appeared to be related to the importance of predictability in Case 3 only.

CONCLUSION

Considerable inter-clinician variability was noted whereby specialty postgraduate training impacted on clinical decision-making. Overall, procedural predictability, technical difficulty, risk of damage to the tooth and patient preference were the most highly ranked factors affecting clinical decision-making. Evidence-based treatment guidelines and dental curricula should be reviewed to enhance inter-clinician agreement in clinical decision-making, ultimately improving patient care.

A qualitative exploration of decisions about dental recall intervals - part 2: perspectives of dentists and patients on the role of shared decision making in dental recall decisions

Introduction Patients are sensitive to both the frequency and costs of dental recall visits. Shared decision making (SDM) is a principle of patient-centred care, advocated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and policymakers, whereby joint decisions are made between clinicians and patients.Aims To explore NHS dentists' and patients' attitudes towards SDM in decisions about recall interval.Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 NHS patients and 25 NHS general dental practitioners in Wales, UK. Transcripts were thematically analysed.Results While many patients would be happy to accept changes to their recall interval, most wanted to be seen at least annually. Most patients were willing to be guided by their dentist in decisions about recall interval, as long as consideration was given to issues such as time, travel and cost. This contrasted with the desire to actively participate in decisions about operative treatment. Although the dentists' understanding of SDM varied, practitioners considered it important to involve patients in decisions about their care. However, dentists perceived that time, patient anxiety and concerns about potential adverse outcomes were barriers to the use of SDM.Conclusions Since there is uncertainty about the most clinically effective and cost-effective dental recall strategy, patient preference may play a role in these decisions.

Changing the Focus to the Whole Patient instead of One Oral Disease: The Concept of Individualized Prevention

Oral diseases are highly prevalent and a global burden. Accordingly, their prevention appears essential. Recently, different strategies have been developed, mainly focusing on the presence of singular oral diseases or conditions. This article aims to construct a contemporary concept of individualized preventive care in dentistry whereby the focus is switched from viewing oral health in isolation to viewing the patient as a whole. The basis for individualized prevention measures is the case-oriented profile, including the synthesis of risk- and need-oriented parameters. The risk profile comprises different risk factors within the fields of systemic diseases, medications, and lifestyle that inherently pose a potential risk of complications (e.g., infectious endocarditis) and/or oral diseases (e.g., periodontitis). The needs profile includes factors originating from the aspects of oral diseases, dental restorations/appliances, and dental results with a potential risk of pathogenesis (e.g., the de novo development of caries) and/or the potential progression of oral diseases (e.g., an existing caries lesion). Based on these parameters, the general framework and content of prevention measures, as well as the maintenance interval, should be adapted to the individual patient. The implications of this concept might increase the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of prevention in dental care. A further area of focus is primary prevention, that is, a focus on the preservation of oral health instead of a disease-related approach. However, clinical validation is needed to prove the benefits of the model presented. Individualized prevention promotes a shift from a disease-focused model to a whole-patient-focused model and provides a potential approach for establishing a contemporary concept for preventive care in dentistry.

[Not Available]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person-centred care, patient expertise and shared decision-making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add-ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on-going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under-developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision-making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real-world contexts.