正规和不正规牙医的二分法有效吗?定性分析。

IF 2.2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
JDR Clinical & Translational Research Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-29 DOI:10.1177/23800844221118515
M M van der Zande, C E Exley, R Freeman, C Thetford, R V Harris
{"title":"正规和不正规牙医的二分法有效吗?定性分析。","authors":"M M van der Zande,&nbsp;C E Exley,&nbsp;R Freeman,&nbsp;C Thetford,&nbsp;R V Harris","doi":"10.1177/23800844221118515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To discover whether dental visiting behavior can be understood as a dichotomy of planned versus problem based, or whether there were a range of different types of understanding and patient behavior, recognizable as patterns of dental visiting behavior.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis drawing on 2 qualitative studies of patients' accounts of dental attendance and oral health, with 1) opportunistic interviews with people attending urgent dental care services (<i>n</i> = 43; including 19 with follow-up) and 2) home-based, in-depth interviews with people attending a dental practice with a mixture of improved or deteriorated/poor periodontal health (<i>n</i> = 25).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four distinguishable patterns of dental visiting were identified in patients' accounts: Accepting and Active Monitoring, as well as Ambivalent and Active Problem-based dental visiting behavior. Individuals' patterns were relatively stable over time but could shift at turning points. Accepting Monitors were characterized as accepting dentists' recommendations and dental practice policies relating to oral health and visits, whereas Active Monitors were more independent in judging how often to attend for preventive appointments, while still valuing anticipatory care. Ambivalent Problem-based visitors placed a relatively low value on anticipatory care for oral health maintenance and drifted into lapsed attendance, in part because of service-related factors. This contrasted with Active Problem-based visitors, for whom using services only in an emergency was a conscious decision, with low value placed on anticipatory care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This article demonstrates the dynamic nature of patterns of dental visiting where the dental system itself is partly instrumental in shaping patterns of utilization in an ecological way. Thus, service-related factors tend to combine with patients' behavior in expanding inequalities. This illuminates the reasons why risk-based recalls are challenging to implement as a dental policy.</p><p><strong>Knowledge transfer statement: </strong>The results of this analysis can be used by clinicians and policymakers to inform policy around supporting uptake of preventive health care visits, contributing in particular to understanding how risk-based preventive visiting policies may be better adapted to patients' understanding of the purpose of visits, taking into account that this is in part shaped by service-related factors in an ecological way, arising from patients' and dental teams' expectations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14783,"journal":{"name":"JDR Clinical & Translational Research","volume":"8 4","pages":"337-348"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504811/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Dichotomization into Regular versus Irregular Dental Attenders Valid? A Qualitative Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"M M van der Zande,&nbsp;C E Exley,&nbsp;R Freeman,&nbsp;C Thetford,&nbsp;R V Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23800844221118515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To discover whether dental visiting behavior can be understood as a dichotomy of planned versus problem based, or whether there were a range of different types of understanding and patient behavior, recognizable as patterns of dental visiting behavior.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis drawing on 2 qualitative studies of patients' accounts of dental attendance and oral health, with 1) opportunistic interviews with people attending urgent dental care services (<i>n</i> = 43; including 19 with follow-up) and 2) home-based, in-depth interviews with people attending a dental practice with a mixture of improved or deteriorated/poor periodontal health (<i>n</i> = 25).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four distinguishable patterns of dental visiting were identified in patients' accounts: Accepting and Active Monitoring, as well as Ambivalent and Active Problem-based dental visiting behavior. Individuals' patterns were relatively stable over time but could shift at turning points. Accepting Monitors were characterized as accepting dentists' recommendations and dental practice policies relating to oral health and visits, whereas Active Monitors were more independent in judging how often to attend for preventive appointments, while still valuing anticipatory care. Ambivalent Problem-based visitors placed a relatively low value on anticipatory care for oral health maintenance and drifted into lapsed attendance, in part because of service-related factors. This contrasted with Active Problem-based visitors, for whom using services only in an emergency was a conscious decision, with low value placed on anticipatory care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This article demonstrates the dynamic nature of patterns of dental visiting where the dental system itself is partly instrumental in shaping patterns of utilization in an ecological way. Thus, service-related factors tend to combine with patients' behavior in expanding inequalities. This illuminates the reasons why risk-based recalls are challenging to implement as a dental policy.</p><p><strong>Knowledge transfer statement: </strong>The results of this analysis can be used by clinicians and policymakers to inform policy around supporting uptake of preventive health care visits, contributing in particular to understanding how risk-based preventive visiting policies may be better adapted to patients' understanding of the purpose of visits, taking into account that this is in part shaped by service-related factors in an ecological way, arising from patients' and dental teams' expectations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JDR Clinical & Translational Research\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"337-348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504811/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JDR Clinical & Translational Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844221118515\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JDR Clinical & Translational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844221118515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:了解牙科就诊行为是否可以理解为计划与基于问题的二分法,或者是否存在一系列不同类型的理解和患者行为,可识别为牙科就诊行为模式。方法:二次分析采用2项关于患者牙科护理和口腔健康的定性研究,其中1)对接受紧急牙科护理服务的人进行机会性访谈(n=43;包括19名随访者),2)在家,对牙周健康状况改善或恶化/较差的牙科诊所就诊人员进行深入访谈(n=25)。结果:在患者的账户中发现了四种可区分的牙科就诊模式:接受和主动监测,以及基于模糊和主动问题的牙科就诊行为。随着时间的推移,个体的模式相对稳定,但可能在转折点发生变化。接受监督员的特征是接受牙医的建议以及与口腔健康和就诊有关的牙科实践政策,而主动监督员在判断预防性预约的频率方面更为独立,同时仍然重视预期护理。基于歧义问题的来访者对口腔健康维护的预期护理的重视程度相对较低,并逐渐减少出勤,部分原因是与服务相关的因素。这与基于主动问题的访客形成了鲜明对比,对他们来说,只在紧急情况下使用服务是一个有意识的决定,而对预期护理的重视程度较低。结论:本文展示了牙科就诊模式的动态性质,其中牙科系统本身在一定程度上有助于以生态的方式形成利用模式。因此,与服务相关的因素往往与患者的行为相结合,扩大了不平等。这说明了基于风险的召回作为牙科政策难以实施的原因。知识转移声明:临床医生和政策制定者可以使用该分析的结果为支持接受预防性医疗访问的政策提供信息,特别是有助于了解基于风险的预防性访问政策如何更好地适应患者对访问目的的理解,考虑到这在一定程度上是由服务相关因素以生态的方式形成的,这些因素源于患者和牙科团队的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Is Dichotomization into Regular versus Irregular Dental Attenders Valid? A Qualitative Analysis.

Is Dichotomization into Regular versus Irregular Dental Attenders Valid? A Qualitative Analysis.

Is Dichotomization into Regular versus Irregular Dental Attenders Valid? A Qualitative Analysis.

Is Dichotomization into Regular versus Irregular Dental Attenders Valid? A Qualitative Analysis.

Aims: To discover whether dental visiting behavior can be understood as a dichotomy of planned versus problem based, or whether there were a range of different types of understanding and patient behavior, recognizable as patterns of dental visiting behavior.

Methods: Secondary analysis drawing on 2 qualitative studies of patients' accounts of dental attendance and oral health, with 1) opportunistic interviews with people attending urgent dental care services (n = 43; including 19 with follow-up) and 2) home-based, in-depth interviews with people attending a dental practice with a mixture of improved or deteriorated/poor periodontal health (n = 25).

Results: Four distinguishable patterns of dental visiting were identified in patients' accounts: Accepting and Active Monitoring, as well as Ambivalent and Active Problem-based dental visiting behavior. Individuals' patterns were relatively stable over time but could shift at turning points. Accepting Monitors were characterized as accepting dentists' recommendations and dental practice policies relating to oral health and visits, whereas Active Monitors were more independent in judging how often to attend for preventive appointments, while still valuing anticipatory care. Ambivalent Problem-based visitors placed a relatively low value on anticipatory care for oral health maintenance and drifted into lapsed attendance, in part because of service-related factors. This contrasted with Active Problem-based visitors, for whom using services only in an emergency was a conscious decision, with low value placed on anticipatory care.

Conclusion: This article demonstrates the dynamic nature of patterns of dental visiting where the dental system itself is partly instrumental in shaping patterns of utilization in an ecological way. Thus, service-related factors tend to combine with patients' behavior in expanding inequalities. This illuminates the reasons why risk-based recalls are challenging to implement as a dental policy.

Knowledge transfer statement: The results of this analysis can be used by clinicians and policymakers to inform policy around supporting uptake of preventive health care visits, contributing in particular to understanding how risk-based preventive visiting policies may be better adapted to patients' understanding of the purpose of visits, taking into account that this is in part shaped by service-related factors in an ecological way, arising from patients' and dental teams' expectations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JDR Clinical & Translational Research
JDR Clinical & Translational Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: JDR Clinical & Translational Research seeks to publish the highest quality research articles on clinical and translational research including all of the dental specialties and implantology. Examples include behavioral sciences, cariology, oral & pharyngeal cancer, disease diagnostics, evidence based health care delivery, human genetics, health services research, periodontal diseases, oral medicine, radiology, and pathology. The JDR Clinical & Translational Research expands on its research content by including high-impact health care and global oral health policy statements and systematic reviews of clinical concepts affecting clinical practice. Unique to the JDR Clinical & Translational Research are advances in clinical and translational medicine articles created to focus on research with an immediate potential to affect clinical therapy outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信