Laypeople's interpretation of, and preference for, orthodontic images

Background:

Good communication is fundamental to provision of information and patient engagement in orthodontic treatment. Images can be used to support verbal and written information, but little is known about how laypeople interpret orthodontic images.

Objective:

To explore laypeople’s understanding and preferences for images (clinical photographs and medical illustrations) relating to orthodontic diagnoses and treatments.

Design:

Cross-sectional survey.

Setting:

UK.

Population:

Laypeople aged ⩾16 years.

Methods:

Participants were recruited through social media to complete an online questionnaire containing six pairs of images (clinical photograph and medical illustration) relating to orthodontic diagnoses and treatment. Photographs were selected from a bank with input from laypeople, then a matching medical illustration was created. Images were presented with questions relating to interpretation, preferences and reasons for preferences.

Results:

A total of 898 people completed the questionnaire. Interpretation of images by laypeople was variable and, in some cases, normal intra-oral features and image orientation caused confusion. A combination of photograph and illustration were preferred for images representing diagnosis (by 41%–50% participants), whereas the illustration alone or both photograph and illustration together was preferred for explaining treatment (43%–48% and 35%–44%, respectively). Photographs were liked for their realism and relatability, while illustrations were often found to be clearer. Arrows aided participants’ understanding of the images, but annotations were requested to further improve the value of images. Only 26% of participants reported having previously been shown dental images, but 96% felt they would be helpful to support verbal and written information.

Conclusion:

Laypeople may not interpret orthodontic images in the way that professionals expect, and unfamiliar intra-oral features may distract people from the intended focus of the image. A combination of photographs and illustrations together may improve the usefulness of images, alongside annotation or explanation.

Patient autonomy in dentistry: demonstrating the role for shared decision making

Background

Evidence-based practice, decision aids, patient preferences and autonomy preferences (AP) play an important role in making decisions with the patient. They are crucial in the process of a shared decision making (SDM) and can be incorporated into quality criteria for patient involvement in health care. However, there are few studies on SDM and AP in the field of dentistry. This study explored patients’ autonomy preferences in dentistry in comparison to other medical domains, comparing them with patient preferences in two other cohorts of patients with different conditions and in different health care settings.

Methods

A sample of 100 dental patients attending 16 dentists was consecutively recruited in a university-based prosthodontic clinic. Patients’ and dentists’ preferences regarding their roles in dental decision making for commonly performed diagnostic and treatment decisions were compared using the Control Preference Scale (CPS). This was followed by cross sectional surveys to study autonomy preferences in three additional cohorts recruited from general practices (n = 100), a multiple sclerosis clinic (n = 109), and a university-based prosthodontic clinic (n = 100). A questionnaire with combined items from the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess general and the CPS to assess specific preferences was used in the additional cohorts.

Results

Dentists were less willing to give patients control than patients were willing to enact autonomy. However, decisions about management of tooth loss were considered relevant for a shared decision making by both parties. When comparing cohorts from different samples, the highest AP was expressed by people with multiple sclerosis and the lowest by patients in dentistry (means: dentistry 2.5, multiple sclerosis 2.1, general practice 2.4, p = .035). There were considerable intra-individual differences in autonomy preferences referring to different decision types (p < .001). In general, more autonomy was desired for treatment decisions in comparison to diagnostic decisions, for trivial compared to severe conditions, and for dental care compared to general practice (all: p < .001).

Conclusion

There is an important role of patient participation in decision making in dentistry. Furthermore, PA should be considered with respect to specific medical decisions instead of assessing autonomy preferences in general implying a need for communication skills training of health care professionals.

Professional consensus on orthodontic risks: What orthodontists should tell their patients

INTRODUCTION

Effective communication of risk is a requisite for valid consent, shared decision-making, and the provision of person-centered care. No agreed standard for the content of discussions with patients about the risks of orthodontic treatment exists. This study aimed to produce a professional consensus recommendation about the risks that should be discussed with patients as part of consent for orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

A serial cross-sectional survey design using a modified electronic Delphi technique was used. Two survey rounds were conducted nationally in the United Kingdom using a custom-made online system. The risks used as the prespecified items scored in the Delphi exercise were identified through a structured literature review. Orthodontists scored treatment risks on a 1-9 scale (1 = not important, 9 = critical to discuss with patients). The consensus that a risk should be discussed as part of consent was predefined as ≥70% orthodontists scoring risk as 7-9 and <15% scoring 1-3.

RESULTS

The electronic Delphi was completed by 237 orthodontists who reached a professional consensus that 10 risks should be discussed as part of consent for orthodontic treatment; demineralization, relapse, resorption, pain, gingivitis, ulceration, appliances breaking, failed tooth movements, treatment duration, and consequences of no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A professional orthodontic consensus has been reached that 10 key risks should be discussed with patients as part of consent for orthodontic treatment. The information in this evidence base should be tailored to patients' individual needs and delivered as part of a continuing risk communication process.

Patients' narratives of orthognathic treatment for facial asymmetry: a qualitative study

To explore patients' experiences of orthognathic treatment for facial asymmetry and their adaptation to facial changes after surgery, we did a qualitative, cross-sectional study of patients after treatment for non-cleft asymmetry at two UK sites. A total of 15 patients aged 19-40 years were approached after being identified using patient databases and clinical notes. Individual and photo-elicitation interviews were conducted covering experiences prior to treatment, during treatment, and after surgery. Interviews were transcribed and thematic narrative analysis undertaken. Participants were largely positive about their orthognathic treatment. The following themes were identified: preoperative (becoming aware, negative impacts of asymmetry, committing to treatment, establishing expectations), pre-surgery orthodontics and inpatient experiences (challenges and coping strategies, preparedness, support, and shared experiences); and postoperative (surgery as 'worth it', positive impacts of treatment, adapting to facial change). Undergoing orthognathic surgery was portrayed as a journey involving recognisable narratives (treatment unfinished, threat of liminality, treatment as resolution, and treatment as transformation). Patients' experiences of facial asymmetry are associated with feeling 'abnormal', and negative impacts, and orthognathic treatment for facial asymmetry is worthwhile. Having the feeling that something is 'wrong' legitimised by clinicians allows patients access to a recognisable treatment narrative (resolution). Orthognathic treatment is also described as transformation from 'normal abnormality' to being 'normal'. Nevertheless, the associated challenges can be frustrating, particularly if resolution is hard to envisage. Further psychological input could help patients cope with these challenges and the complex process of adapting to facial change.

Can the current hypodontia care pathway promote shared decision-making?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which the current care pathway in hypodontia promotes shared decision-making (SDM).

DESIGN

Exploratory cross-sectional study using qualitative methods.

SETTING

Orthodontic department of two NHS teaching hospitals in Yorkshire.

PARTICIPANTS

Young people aged 12-16 years with hypodontia of any severity and at any stage of treatment, and their parents and guardians.

METHODS

(1) Observation and audio-recording of interdisciplinary consultation in hypodontia clinics (n = 5) without any researcher interference; (2) short, structured interviews with young people with hypodontia (n = 8) and their parent (n = 8) using a topic guide to explore themes around decision-making. Audio-recordings were transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework.

RESULTS

Consultations were used as an opportunity for interdisciplinary discussion, information provision and treatment planning. Evidence of good communication was observed but patient engagement was low. The decision to be made was usually stated and treatment options discussed, but time constraints limited the scope for adequate information exchange and assessment of understanding. No methods were used to establish patient and family preferences or values. Interviews suggested parents expect the dental team to make decisions and young people rely on parental advocacy. Despite little evidence of SDM, participants reported satisfaction with their treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The current care pathway for hypodontia does not support clinicians in the steps of SDM. Recommendations for improving SDM processes include support to identify preference-based decisions, greater access to comprehensive and accessible patient information to enable preparation for consultation, alternative methods for effective communication of complex information and use of preference elicitation tools to aid value-driven decision-making.

Shared decision-making in orthodontics: Are we there yet?

Shared decision-making (SDM) is the process of making decisions ‘with’ rather than ‘about’ patients. This review outlines key stages of SDM, discusses some of the main barriers to SDM and identifies areas where further evidence is needed to support full integration of SDM into orthodontics.

Difference and relation between adolescents' and their parents or caregivers' reported oral health-related quality of life related to orthodontic treatment: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Parents/caregivers play an important role in deciding whether their children will undergo orthodontic treatment or not. Their perceptions also have an influence on other choices involving orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference and correlation between the ratings given by children and their parents or caregivers on their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) before, during and after orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

In this ongoing observational prospective cohort study, 498 children aged 11 to 16 years-old and one of their parents/caregivers completed questionnaires before (T0), 1 year after start (T1) and 1 month after the end of orthodontic treatment (T2). OHRQoL was scored by using the Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11-14) and the Parental-Caregiver Perception questionnaire (P-CPQ). The self-perception of oral aesthetics was evaluated with the Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Scale (OASIS) in addition to the aesthetic component (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney U-tests and linear models were used to analyze the longitudinal data.

RESULTS

At T0, the ratings of parents/caregivers were significantly lower for the total CPQ as well as for the subdomains of oral symptoms, functional limitations and emotional well-being. Parents/caregivers also scored significantly lower at T2 for the total CPQ and the subdomain of oral symptoms. The relations between the scores of children and their parents/caregivers were significant at all three time points, as were the changes in scores, but all of them were at most moderate in size. Parents/caregivers scored significantly lower for OASIS than their children at all time points and only at baseline a significant, weak correlation was found.

CONCLUSION

The reports of parents/caregivers should be seen as important complementary information in OHRQoL research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Commitee of the University Hospitals Leuven and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (ML5739), Leuven, Belgium, on the 12th of May of 2009, with the registration number S51642. All procedures performed are in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Adolescent perceptions of orthodontic treatment risks and risk information: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

For effective risk communication, clinicians must understand patients' values and beliefs in relation to the risks of treatment. This qualitative study aimed to explore adolescent perceptions of orthodontic treatment risks and risk information.

METHODS

Five focus groups were carried out with 32 school/college pupils aged 12-18 in Wales, UK. Participants were purposively selected and had all experienced orthodontic treatment. A thematic approach was used for analysis and data collection was completed at the point of data saturation.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the data; (a) day-to-day risks of orthodontic treatment, (b) important orthodontic risk information, (c) engaging with orthodontic risk information and (d) managing the risks of orthodontic treatment. Day-to-day risks of orthodontic treatment that were affecting participants "here and now" were of most concern. Information about preventing the risks of treatment was deemed to be important. Participants did not actively seek risk information but engaged passively with information from convenient sources. Perceptions of risk susceptibility influenced participants' management of the risks of orthodontic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that adolescent patients can understand information about the nature and severity of orthodontic treatment risks. However, adolescent patients can have false perceptions if the risks are unfamiliar, perceived only to have a future impact or if seen as easy to control. Adolescent patients must be provided with timely and easily accessible risk information and with practical solutions to prevent the risks of treatment.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The views and experiences gathered in this study can assist clinicians to better understand their young patients' beliefs about treatment risks, facilitate effective risk communication and contribute to improved patient-centred care.

Assessment of information resources for people with hypodontia

Aim:

To assess the adequacy of patient information to support understanding and decision-making for people affected by hypodontia.

Methods:

1) Questionnaire to understand the provision of patient information by dentists; 2) Systematic search to identify online open-access patient information; 3) Quality assessment of written patient information.

Results:

Questionnaire response rate was 49% (319/649); 91% examined and/or treated people with hypodontia. Most general dentists referred patients to specialist services without providing written hypodontia information. The majority of dental specialists provide patient leaflets but less than a third used web-resources. Only 19% of respondents felt current resources were fit-for-purpose. Thirty-one patient resources (18 leaflets and 13 online) were assessed against quality criteria. The aim of the resource was seldom explicit, the content was often incomplete and variation in readability scores indicated high levels of literacy were required.

Discussion:

Access to, and quality of, patient information for hypodontia is inadequate. Current resources are not sufficiently comprehensive to prepare young patients to engage in shared dental care decisions with their parents and/or dental professionals.

Conclusion:

There is a need for improved access to, and provision of, information about hypodontia if dental professionals want to meet best practice guidance and involve patients in shared decision-making.

Perception of parents and caregivers regarding the impact of malocclusion on adolescents' quality of life: a cross-sectional study

Objective:

The objective of this article was to assess the perception of parents and caregivers regarding the impact of malocclusion on adolescents’ oral health -related quality of life (OHRQoL).

Methods:

This cross-sectional study consisted of a sample of 280 parents/caregivers of 11 and 12-year-old adolescents who answered the Parental-Caregiver Perceptions Questionnaire (P-CPQ). Parent-assessed quality of life of adolescents was the dependent variable. The main independent variable was adolescents’ malocclusion which was diagnosed by means of the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI). Based on DAI cut-off points, adolescents were classified into four grades of malocclusion, with different orthodontic treatment recommendations assigned to each grade: no need/slight treatment need, elective treatment, highly desirable treatment and mandatory treatment. Adolescents’ age and sex, as well as family monthly income, were considered as confounding variables. Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and Poisson regression with robust variance.

Results:

Of the 280 parents/caregivers initially accepted in this study, 18 refused to answer the P-CPQ. Therefore, 262 individuals participated in this assessment, providing a response rate of 93.5%. The severity of adolescents’ malocclusion was significantly associated with a higher negative impact on parents’/caregivers’ perception on the oral symptoms (p< 0.05), functional limitations (p < 0.001), emotional well-being (p < 0.001), and social well-being (p < 0.001) subscale scores as well as on the overall P-CPQ score (p < 0.001), even after having been adjusted for the controlling variables.

Conclusions:

Parents/caregivers reported a negative impact of malocclusion on adolescents’ OHRQoL. Increased severity of malocclusion is associated with higher adverse impact on OHRQoL.

Shared decision making in healthcare

Shared decision making is at the core of the new-look NHS. Everyone will be familiar with ‘no decision about me without me’ but how familiar are we with actually making shared decisions in practice?

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers' views of chronic low back pain patients' expectations of CAM therapies: a qualitative study

Background

Some researchers think that patients with higher expectations for CAM therapies experience better outcomes and that enthusiastic providers can enhance treatment outcomes. This is in contrast to evidence suggesting conventional medical providers often reorient patient expectations to better match what providers believe to be realistic. However, there is a paucity of research on CAM providers’ views of their patients’ expectations regarding CAM therapy and the role of these expectations in patient outcomes.

Methods

To better understand how CAM providers view and respond to their patients’ expectations of a particular therapy, we conducted 32 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists and yoga instructors identified through convenience sampling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using Atlas ti version 6.1.

Results

CAM providers reported that they attempt to ensure that their patients’ expectations are realistic. Providers indicated they manage their patients’ expectations in a number of domains— roles and responsibilities of providers and patients, treatment outcomes, timeframe for improvement, and treatment experience. Providers reported that patients’ expectations change over time and that they need to continually manage these expectations to enhance patient engagement and satisfaction with treatment.

Conclusions

Providers of four types of CAM therapies viewed patients’ expectations as an important component of their experiences with CAM therapy and indicated that they try to align patient expectations with reality. These findings suggest that CAM providers are similar in this respect to conventional medical providers.

A new style of orthognathic clinic

The Orthognathic Team at the Eastman Dental Hospital has developed a new style of multidisciplinary clinic to supplement the traditional orthognathic consultation. The aim of the new clinic is to increase patient satisfaction and involvement in the consent and decision making process, as well as optimizing the information given to prospective patients regarding all aspects of this complex elective treatment. Results of a survey of patients attending the clinic found that 80% thought that the information given was 'just the right amount' and 96% were satisfied with the new structure. They particularly found it useful to meet a patient who had completed treatment. All of those who attended said that they understood the information given to them and would recommend the clinic to those considering orthognathic treatment. They also liked having other patients there with them on the clinic.