Dataset Information

Perspectives of general dental practitioners on preventive, patient-centred, and evidence-based oral healthcare-A Q-methodology study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In the last 30 years, innovations in oral healthcare (OHC), such as advanced restorative techniques, shifts towards preventive and evidence-based care and changes in patients' expectations, have increased the complexity of clinical decision-making in OHC. Little is known about the perspectives of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on the value of providing preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. This study aimed to explore the range of perspectives present amongst GDPs on OHC.

Method

Q-methodology was used to explore perspectives among 78 GDPs working in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to sort 50 statements representing three central domains in OHC: i.) restorative versus preventative OHC, ii.) disease-centred versus patient-centred OHC and iii.) expertise-based versus evidence-based OHC. Opinion statements about delivering OHC were formulated on the basis of published literature and input from OHC professionals. By-person factor analysis was used to reveal clusters of communality in statement rankings, which were interpreted and formed perspectives on OHC.

Results

Four perspectives, explaining 47% of variance, on OHC were identified amongst GDPs: 'the patient-focused dentist who values prevention', 'the outcome-oriented dentist who values learning from colleagues', 'the team player with ultimate care responsibility' and 'the dentist who considers oral health the responsibility of the patient.'

Conclusion

Q-methodology can be effectively used to describe the different perspectives that GDPs have on the challenges of preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. GDPs should not be seen as a homogenous group; rather they have different views and approaches to the care they provide. This has implications for health systems; awareness of the heterogeneity of practitioners' perspectives can potentially be used to develop bespoke quality of care improvement strategies that constructively engage with each of these different groups.

SUBMITTER: Baadoudi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6701752 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perspectives of general dental practitioners on preventive, patient-centred, and evidence-based oral healthcare-A Q-methodology study.

Baâdoudi Fatiha F van Exel Job N A JNA Ali Fatima M FM Maskrey Neal N van der Heijden Geert J M G GJMG Duijster Denise D

PloS one 20190820 8

<h4>Objective</h4>In the last 30 years, innovations in oral healthcare (OHC), such as advanced restorative techniques, shifts towards preventive and evidence-based care and changes in patients' expectations, have increased the complexity of clinical decision-making in OHC. Little is known about the perspectives of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on the value of providing preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. This study aimed to explore the range of perspectives present amongst ...[more]

PMID: 31430291

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSignificant challenges remain in the early identification of child developmental disabilities in the community. Implementing supports and services early in the life course has been shown to promote positive developmental outcomes for children at high likelihood of developmental disabilities, including autism. As part of a cluster randomised controlled trial, this study seeks to examine and compare the perspectives and experiences of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to a digital developmental surveillance program for autism and usual care pathway, in general practice clinics.MethodsA qualitative research methodology with semi-structured interviews and thematic inductive analysis underpinned by grounded theory was utilised. All GPs from South Western Sydney (NSW) and Melbourne (Victoria) who participated in the main program ("GP Surveillance for Autism") were invited to the interview. GPs who provided consent were interviewed either over online or in-person meeting. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 software. Inductive interpretive approach was adopted and data were analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty-three GPs across the two sites (NSW: n = 11; Victoria: n = 12) agreed to be interviewed; data saturation had reached following this number of participants. Inductive thematic coding and analysis yielded eight major themes and highlighted common enablers such as the role of GPs in early identification and subsequent supports, enhanced communication between clinicians/professionals, relationship-building with patients, and having standardised screening tools. Specific facilitators to the feasibility and acceptability of a digital screening program for the early identification of developmental disabilities, including the early signs of autism, and encouraging research and education for GPs. However, several practical and socioeconomic barriers were identified, in addition to limited knowledge and uptake of child developmental screening tools as well as COVID-19 lockdown impacts. Common and specific recommendations involve supporting GPs in developmental/paediatrics training, streamlined screening process, and funding and resources in the primary healthcare services.ConclusionsThe study highlighted the need for practice and policy changes, including further training of GPs alongside sufficient time to complete developmental checks and appropriate financial remuneration through a Medicare billing item. Further research is needed on implementation and scale up of a national surveillance program for early identification of developmental disabilities, including autism.

Project description:Telemedicine allows delivery of healthcare to occur between parties that are not in the same location. As telemedicine users are not co-present, effective communication methods are crucial to the delivery and reception of information. The aim of this study was to explore perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and patients on the interactional components of telemedicine consultations. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were held with telemedicine users; 15 GPs and nine patients self-selected from a larger telemedicine study. Participants were asked about their preparation for telemedicine consultations, conducting telemedicine consultations and post-consultation activities. Deidentified transcripts from the interviews were analysed thematically. GPs and patients discussed factors they used to decide whether a consultation would be best conducted by telemedicine or in-person; the condition to be discussed, the existing doctor-patient relationship and whether physical examination was required. Participants also described how they prepared for their telemedicine consultations, gathering relevant documents, and reading previous notes. Participants described strategies they employed to optimise the telemedicine interaction; improving conversational flow and building rapport, as well as difficulties they experienced when trying to provide and receive care via telemedicine. Patient factors including health literacy and familiarity with technology affect the transfer of information shared during telemedicine consultations and consideration of these factors when choosing patients for telemedicine is required. Many GPs and patients have innate communication skills to effectively deliver and receive care through telemedicine. However, they may not be aware of these subconscious techniques to use to optimise telemedicine consultations. Communication training could be delivered to increase conversational flow, build rapport, and establish safety netting.

Project description:BACKGROUND: It has now for many years been recognised that patient evaluations should be undertaken as an integral part of the complex task of improving the quality of general practice care. Yet little is known about the general practitioners' (GPs') benefit from patient evaluations. Aim 1 was to study the impact on the GPs of a patient evaluation and subsequent feedback of results presented at a plenary session comprising a study guide for the results and group discussions. Aim 2 was to study possible facilitators and barriers to the implementations of the results raised by the patient evaluation process. METHODS: A patient evaluation survey of 597 voluntarily participating GPs was performed by means of the EUROPEP questionnaire. Evaluation results were fed back to the GPs as written reports at a single feedback meeting with group discussions of the results. Between 3 and 17 months after the feedback, the 597 GPs received a questionnaire with items addressing their experience with and perceived benefit from the evaluations. RESULTS: 79.4% of the GPs responded. 33% of the responding GPs reported that the patient evaluation had raised their attention to the patient perspective on the quality of general practice care. Job satisfaction had improved among 26%, and 21% had developed a more positive attitude to patient evaluations. 77% of the GPs reported having learnt from the evaluation. 54% had made changes to improve practice, 82% would recommend a patient evaluation to a colleague and 75% would do another patient evaluation if invited. 14% of the GPs had become less positive towards patient evaluations, and job satisfaction had decreased among 3%. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant impact on the GPs regarding satisfaction with the process and attitude towards patient evaluations, GPs' attention to the patients' perspective on care quality and their job satisfaction. Being benchmarked against the average seemed to raise barriers to the concept of patient evaluations and difficulties interpreting the results may have formed a barrier to their implementation which was partly overcome by adding qualitative data to the quantitative results. The GPs' significant willingness to share and discuss the results with others may have served as a facilitator.

Dataset Information

Perspectives of general dental practitioners on preventive, patient-centred, and evidence-based oral healthcare-A Q-methodology study.

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Perspectives of general dental practitioners on preventive, patient-centred, and evidence-based oral healthcare-A Q-methodology study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets