American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2022
A qualitative evaluation of attitudes toward extractions among primary care orthodontists in Great Britain.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Richardson Libby, Millett Declan, Benson Philip E, Cunningham Susan J, Gray-Burrows Kara A, Fleming Padhraig S
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The need to extract permanent teeth as part of orthodontic treatment has been keenly debated over many decades. Changes in the frequency of extraction have been well documented; however, we continue to lack an understanding of what influences clinicians' decisions regarding extracting permanent teeth.
METHODS: Purposive sampling was undertaken to obtain representative views from primary care practitioners across Great Britain with a range of experience representing genders and wide geographic distribution. Twenty participants (9 female, 11 male) took part in in-depth, qualitative, 1-to-1 interviews based on a piloted topic guide. Interviews were conducted via video conferencing software with audio recording and verbatim transcription. Thematic analysis was performed with discussion and agreement to identify the main themes.
RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) patient-related factors, such as age and features of the malocclusion, (2) operator factors, including the level of experience, (3) setting, with regard to geographic location and method of remuneration, (4) mechanical approaches, including variations in appliance systems; and (5) self-directed ongoing education, including both formal continuing professional development and informal learning from peers. These factors acted as barriers, enablers, or both in relation to nonextraction treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Five key influences on extraction decisions among orthodontists in Great Britain were identified. Extraction choices appear to be influenced by various interrelated factors, evolving over time and with increased experience.
METHODS: Purposive sampling was undertaken to obtain representative views from primary care practitioners across Great Britain with a range of experience representing genders and wide geographic distribution. Twenty participants (9 female, 11 male) took part in in-depth, qualitative, 1-to-1 interviews based on a piloted topic guide. Interviews were conducted via video conferencing software with audio recording and verbatim transcription. Thematic analysis was performed with discussion and agreement to identify the main themes.
RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) patient-related factors, such as age and features of the malocclusion, (2) operator factors, including the level of experience, (3) setting, with regard to geographic location and method of remuneration, (4) mechanical approaches, including variations in appliance systems; and (5) self-directed ongoing education, including both formal continuing professional development and informal learning from peers. These factors acted as barriers, enablers, or both in relation to nonextraction treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Five key influences on extraction decisions among orthodontists in Great Britain were identified. Extraction choices appear to be influenced by various interrelated factors, evolving over time and with increased experience.