Knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making in orthodontics in the UK

Shared decision-making in scaling and root planing

INTRODUCTION

Estimate proportion of various approaches used by dental hygienists for engaging patients in decisions commonly arising during scaling and root planing. Distribution of approaches was compared across various task components in this procedure, practice experience of dental hygienists and patient compliance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Survey of graduates from and students in a baccalaureate dental hygiene program.

RESULTS

Paternalism (tell then do) and informed consent (give choices and reasons and ask for permission) were more common than shared decision-making (discuss alternatives, solicit patient input and arrive at a mutual decision) and disengagement (patient refusing offered service or avoiding further involvement) by a ratio of 4 to 1 for the first 2 compared with the latter 2. This relationship was held across selecting treatment, procedural adjuncts, homecare instructions and financial arrangements. Dental hygienists exhibited a range of personal preferences for engagement approaches. No-show rate, patient disengagement outside the office, was high (20%).

CONCLUSION

Dental hygienists reported using 'more controlled' approaches to engaging patients in decisions regarding treatment. Patients may prefer to engage in more shared decisions and choose this approach by staying away from the office. This may underestimate patients' decisions to stay away from treatment, for example by not showing for completion of the treatment or disregarding homecare routines.

Orthodontic clinicians' attitudes and knowledge of dentogingival aesthetics: A cross-sectional survey of BOS members

OBJECTIVE

To assess orthodontic clinicians' knowledge and attitudes towards dentogingival aesthetics and to explore characteristics that predict the knowledge of dentogingival aesthetics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire.

SETTING

On-line survey of members of the British Orthdontic Society.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An 11-item online questionnaire was sent to orthodontic practitioners for completion. The questionnaire covered respondent demographics and questions relating to both knowledge and attitudes towards dentogingival aesthetics (six parameters). Descriptive statistics were calculated for study characteristics and summary values for the survey items. Responses to the eight knowledge-based questions were converted to a binary outcome (correct and incorrect answer). The maximum score that could be achieved was eight. Multivariable modelling was used in order to examine associations between the study characteristics and the aggregate score.

RESULTS

A total of 252 responses were obtained resulting in a response rate of 17%. Within this cohort, the respondents were primarily women (52.8%) and aged 30-40 years (35.7%). The mean score for the eight knowledge-based questions was 3.8 ± 1.8 (range = 0-8). Knowledge of the ideal gingival margin position of the anterior teeth was high (92.4%). Knowledge of the other five dentogingival aesthetic parameters was variable. In the multivariable analysis, lower knowledge scores were predicated by respondents who did not have a special interest in dental aesthetics (-0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.01 to -0.07; P = 0.02), who could not recall attending courses, lectures or seminars on dental aesthetics in the past five years (-0.80; 95% CI = -1.43 to -0.17; P = 0.01) and with increasing age (-0.43; 95% CI = -0.62 to -0.23; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of ideal dentogingival parameters is generally suboptimal among orthodontists in the UK. The reported lack of knowledge of the ideal dentogingival parameters may also influence respondents' attitudes towards the importance of dentogingival aesthetics. Further teaching or courses related to dentogingival aesthetics is desired by orthodontic clinicians.

Dentists' attitudes toward patient-centered care and its predictors: a cross-sectional study in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered care (PCC) has been one of medical practice's most frequently discussed principles. However, attitudes toward PCC among dentists remain underexplored. This study focuses on examining dentists' patient-centered attitudes and investigating their predictors.

METHODS

The Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale which consists of Sharing and Caring subscales was used to assess patient-centered attitudes. The statistical analysis included 217 dentists from South Korea. Hierarchical linear regression analysis was performed to examine the predictors such as sociodemographic aspects, academic factors, work-related factors, and empathy.

RESULTS

A patient-centered attitude of Caring subscale (M = 4.29, SD = 0.56) emerged, but the provider-centered attitude was higher in Sharing subscale (M = 3.40, SD = 0.48). Work year, academic track, and empathy were associated significantly with an overall caring aspect of patient-centered attitude, while the gender effect remained insignificant. Empathy had a critical and significant impact on the patient-centered attitude.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to enhance patient-centeredness in Sharing are needed; post-graduate education and transition to a more patient-centered health system are recommended. Moreover, empathy still matters as it was found to be a significant predictor of patient-centered attitudes. The findings of this study support the need for efforts to enhance patient-centered attitudes among dentists, which will help generate discussion on improving the curriculum of post-graduate education and health system reform.

Ectopic and impacted maxillary canines: A quality evaluation of online information

OBJECTIVE

To determine the quality of online information regarding ectopic and impacted maxillary canines (EIMCs).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey on the Internet.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online search using eight terms was carried out using four search engines. The relevant content of websites satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for quality by applying three quality of information instruments and one readability tool. Statistical analyses were performed through GraphPad Prism 9.0.

RESULTS

In total, 77 websites were evaluated. Most of the assessed content was associated with oral and maxillofacial surgery (49.35%) and orthodontic websites (31.18%). The overall mean DISCERN score was 38.05 ± 9.76/80 with 59.73% of websites recording a poor or very poor score. Three (3.9%) websites contained the HONCode seal. Twelve (15.58%) websites satisfied at least three out of a maximum four JAMA benchmarks and 11 (14.29%) satisfied none. The mean SMOG score was 9.81 ± 1.52 (95% confidence interval = 9.46-10.16; range = 6.7-15.1).

CONCLUSION

The quality of online information related to EIMCs was poor and the content was difficult to read. Professional societies and clinicians should consider the use of quality of information and readability tools to enable the provision for reliable, high-quality and readable online information. This will assist EIMC treatment-related decision-making and management by patients and their families.

Assessing dentist and dental student knowledge of and attitudes towards shared decision-making in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a partnership between healthcare professionals and patients when choosing care.

AIM

To measure knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM amongst undergraduate dental students and dentists in the UK.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional online questionnaire for 4th and 5th year dental students and dentists in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The questionnaire included attitudinal questions, knowledge of SDM relative to the evidence base and preferred approach to decision-making. The questionnaire identified perceived learning needs and preferred method for SDM teaching for dentists and dental students. Respondents were invited to participate via social media, mailing lists and CPD courses.

RESULTS

Respondents included 266 undergraduates and 130 dentists. SDM was defined by the people involved, components of the discussion, approach to decision-making and expected outcome. Attitudes to SDM were generally positive although concerns were expressed about patients wanting professionals to make the decision, straying from the professionals' preferred option and compatibility with clinical guidelines. Respondents reported a preference for decision-making to involve patients, but this tended to be an informative rather than deliberative approach. Respondents were least sure of the evidence about the impact of SDM on adherence, choices and health outcomes, and the best approach to risk communication. Respondents from both groups reported an interest in learning more about SDM and its integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of, and attitude to, SDM in UK dentists and dental undergraduates is generally positive; however, a demand for further SDM training was identified.

Decision making regarding management of compromised first permanent molars in patients with molar incisor hypomineralisation: A comparison of orthodontists and paediatric dentists

OBJECTIVES

To obtain the views and opinions of specialist members of the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) and British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) in relation to (1) the multidisciplinary management of patients affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) and (2) the diagnosis and management of MIH-affected first permanent molars (FPMs) in four clinical scenarios, and compare the responses to those of an expert panel consensus.

DESIGN

A prospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Part 1: Eastman Dental Institute and part 2: online questionnaire.

METHODS

Four clinical scenarios showing patients with differing severities of MIH affected FPMs were considered by a panel of orthodontists and paediatric dentists to agree on the severity of MIH and management. A 21-item online questionnaire sent to both specialist groups, after pilot study. The questionnaire covered demographics, access to multidisciplinary clinics, clinicians' opinions on various management aspects, and questions relating to the management of the same 4 clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

The overall response was 21.9% (20% of the orthodontists and 45% of the paediatric dentists). Approximately half of the respondents from both groups felt that these patients should be managed through a multidisciplinary treatment type clinic (49.0% of the orthodontists and 47.2% of the paediatric dentists). Only 40.3% of the orthodontists and 35.0% of the paediatric dentists agreed completely with the panel consensus on all management options. When assessing overall agreement on all four FPMs for all scenarios, agreement was predicted by severity of MIH (P<0.001) and complexity of malocclusion (P<0.001) where more complex malocclusions and more severe MIH resulted in poorer agreement, but specialty was not a significant predictor (P=0.21).

CONCLUSION

The majority of the respondents from both groups, felt that managing patients with MIH affected FPMs is challenging. Approximately half of the orthodontists and the paediatric dentists, felt that MIH affected patients should be managed through a multidisciplinary type clinic. Managing more severe cases on multidisciplinary clinics is indicated, to incorporate specialist input into decision making.