Integrating “Experience Economy” into Orthodontic Practice Management: A current perspective on internal marketing

Why do patients transition between orthodontic appliances? A qualitative analysis of patient decision-making

OBJECTIVES

To gain an in-depth understanding of patients' decision-making processes when choosing to transition to a different orthodontic appliance (OA).

METHODS

This was a retrospective qualitative study using one-on-one in-depth semi-structured interviews. Patients were recruited through purposive convenience sampling. Participants who had elected to transition from and to one of these OAs: metal brackets, tooth-coloured brackets, or clear aligners before the end of treatment were recruited. Recruitment ceased when data saturation was achieved. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three adult participants (12 males, 11 females) with their ages ranging from 18 to 52 years were interviewed. The analysis of the data revealed that participants perceived two reasons for the transition: (1) insufficient initial information and (2) evolving life circumstances and personal style. Data analysis of participants who expressed a notable discrepancy between their expectations and the reality of the OA they chose revolved around three themes: (a) health benefits and threats, (b) personal control, and (c) financial considerations. Data analysis of participants who described transitioning between OAs due to changes in personal circumstances and style, revealed two themes: (a) change in personal values and motivations and (b) change in social and psychological influence.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study highlighted the complex multifactorial nature of patient decision-making when choosing and transitioning OAs. Orthodontists can benefit from understanding these factors to engage in thorough patient-centered counselling, provide tailored treatment recommendations, and optimize the choice of appliances.

Assessment of the quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of marketed orthodontic products: a cross-sectional investigation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of providers of marketed orthodontic products.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one websites of orthodontic appliance and adjunct (product) providers were identified. The website content was assessed via two validated quality-of-information instruments (DISCERN and the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmarks) and an accuracy-of-information instrument. Website content was qualitatively analyzed for themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

More than half (n = 11; 52.3%) of the assessed websites contained clinician testimonials. The mean (SD) DISCERN score was 33.14 (5.44). No website recorded the minimum of three JAMA benchmarks required to indicate reliability. The most common content themes related to quality-of-life impact and treatment duration. Just 8% of the statements within the websites were objectively true. The Pearson correlation coefficient indicated that the DISCERN scores were correlated with the accuracy-of-information scores (r = .83; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of the providers of marketed orthodontic products was poor. The combined use of DISCERN and the accuracy-of-information instrument may help overcome the shortcomings of each. Clinicians should check the accuracy of information on orthodontic product provider websites before adding links to those websites on their own sites.

The effect of vestibular, lingual, and aligner appliances on the quality of life of adult patients during the initial stages of orthodontic treatment

Background

Patient quality of life (QoL) during orthodontic treatment is an important consideration that requires greater academic investigation as greater focus is placed on enhancing patient experience. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed in three orthodontic appliance groups, i.e., vestibular, lingual, and aligners during the initial stages of treatment. The sample was comprised of 117 adult patient-subjects distributed into 3 groups: vestibular (n = 41), lingual (n = 37), and aligner (n = 39). A WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire surveyed four domains (physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment).

Results

Mean scores for domain 1, physical health, showed that the aligner group (28.1) had significantly greater scores than that of the vestibular (22.7) or lingual (22) groups. Domain 2, psychological health, demonstrated significant differences (P < 0.001) between all groups, with the aligner group scoring the highest (23.2), followed by the lingual (18.4) and vestibular (15.2) groups. Domain 3, social relationship, showed that aligner (10.9) and lingual (10.2) scores were significantly greater (P < 0.001) than those of the vestibular group (7.8). Domain 4, environment, displayed significant differences between all groups, with the aligner group scoring highest (32.1), followed by the lingual group (29.3), and lastly the vestibular group (26.4). Overall, the highest mean score was obtained by the aligner group (23.1) and the lowest mean score was by the vestibular group (18). The mean domain scores for all three groups were significantly different (P ≤ 0.005) from each other (Table 2).

Conclusions

Overall, patients undergoing Aligner therapy reported the overall highest QoL scores, followed by lingual and vestibular groups.