Factors Associated with Patients' Rejection of Root Canal Treatment in a Tertiary Hospital, Southwest Nigeria: A Pilot Survey

Objective

Root canal treatment (RCT) is a major procedure in dentistry. It aims to relieve the pain of pulpal origin and maintain the affected tooth as a functional unit on the arch. Despite these achievable goals, RCT is sometimes rejected by patients. This study, therefore, sought to assess the reasons for rejection in patients planned for endodontic/RCT.

Materials and Methods

This was a cross-sectional pilot survey of patients planned for RCT using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire included sociodemographics, the Index for Dental Anxiety and Fear (IDAF-4C), and questions to assess the reasons for rejection of endodontic treatment. Data collected were analysed with IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software program, version 23.0. Descriptive statistics were used; chi-square was used to test the association between categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.

Result

Thirty-one patients between the age range of 16 and 81 years, with a mean age of 38.16 ± 17.87, participated in the survey. Only nine (29.03%) of the participants declined to have the treatment. The majority 6(66.7%), and 7(77.8%) of those that refused the treatment did so, due to fear of drilling (P = 0.014) and cost of treatment (P = 0.001), respectively. Mean IDAF-4C was 1.86 ± 0.9 (standard deviation).The rejection was, however, not affected by past experience, the risk of taking multiple radiographs, and the number of hours or visits for the procedure.

Conclusion

The cost of treatment and fear of drilling were the major reasons for the rejection of RCT in this study. Therefore, there is a need to further look into making endodontic treatment a more comfortable, less costly, and less fear-provoking procedure for patients.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures in Arabic speaking countries: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly recognized as an indicator of healthcare quality and safety. Over the past decades, there has been a growing interest in using PROMs in Arabic-speaking populations. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the quality of their cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) and measurement properties.

OBJECTIVES

To identify PROMs that have been developed, validated or cross-culturally adapted to Arabic and evaluate methodological qualities of CCA and measurement properties.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IPA, and ISI Web of Science were searched using search terms 'PROMs', 'Arabic countries', 'CCA', and 'psychometric properties'. Measurement properties were evaluated using COSMIN quality criteria and CCA quality was assessed using the Oliveria rating method.

RESULTS

This review included 260 studies with 317 PROMs, focusing on psychometric testing (83.8%), CCA (75.8%), utilizing PROMs as outcome measures (13.4%), and developing PROMs (2.3%). Out of the 201 cross-culturally adapted PROMs, forward translation was the most frequently reported component of CCA (n = 178), followed by back translation (n = 174). Out of the 235 PROMs that reported measurement properties, internal consistency was the most frequently reported measurement property (n = 214), followed by reliability (n = 160) and hypotheses testing (n = 143). Other measurement properties were less reported, including responsiveness (n = 36), criterion validity (n = 22), measurement error (n = 12), and cross-cultural validity (n = 10). The strongest measurement property was hypotheses testing (n = 143), followed by reliability (n = 132).

CONCLUSION

There are several caveats regarding the quality of CCA and measurement properties of PROMs included in this review. Only 1 out of 317 Arabic PROMs met CCA and psychometric optimal quality criteria. Therefore, there is a need to improve the methodological quality of CCA and measurement properties of PROMs. This review provides valuable information for researchers and clinicians when choosing PROMs for practice and research. There were only 5 treatment-specific PROMs, indicating the necessity for more research focusing on development and CCA of such measures.