Patient, clinician and independent observer perspectives of shared decision making in adult orthodontics

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.

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.

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.