A survey of general dental practitioners in the North West of England concerning the dental care of patients following head and neck radiotherapy.

Adam B Husein, Chris J Butterworth, Meena S Ranka, Andrew Kwasnicki, Simon N Rogers
{"title":"A survey of general dental practitioners in the North West of England concerning the dental care of patients following head and neck radiotherapy.","authors":"Adam B Husein,&nbsp;Chris J Butterworth,&nbsp;Meena S Ranka,&nbsp;Andrew Kwasnicki,&nbsp;Simon N Rogers","doi":"10.1308/135576111795162910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this survey was to investigate the views of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on their perceived roles and the barriers regarding dental care of patients following head and neck radio-therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From a total of 1163 GDPs on the Mersey Postgraduate Dental Deanery mailing list, 369 were selected at random. Questionnaires were sent out in February 2010 followed by reminders a month later. A study-specific questionnaire was piloted prior to the survey.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and ninety-eight of the potential 336 respondents returned valid questionnaires, a response rate of 59%. They did not respond to all questions. Of those who responded, 99/188 (53%) were either 'not at all' or 'little' happy about managing these patients and 118/183 (64%) and 100/173 (58%), respectively, perceived that complex management and the new General Dental Services (nGDS) contract introduced in 2006 were 'quite a bit' or 'very much' barriers to treatment. The majority of the respondents felt that they were 'quite a bit' or 'very much' happy to carry out routine fillings (177/195; 90%), periodontal treatment (166/195; 85%), removable dentures (161/195; 83%), crown and bridge work (123/192; 64%), and root canal therapy (114/195; 58%) but only 53/191 (28%) to perform dental extractions. Over half of the respondents felt that they had 'quite a bit' or a 'main role' in managing radiotherapy caries, xerostomia, detecting recurrence and offering smoking-cessation advice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of the GDPs who responded had been involved in the management of patients who had undergone radio-therapy to the head and neck. A substantial number perceived barriers to care, such as the complexity of the treatment and the nGDS contract. These findings need further investigation. Continuing professional development would be helpful to improve GDPs' confidence in dealing with this group of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":79454,"journal":{"name":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","volume":"18 2","pages":"59-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1308/135576111795162910","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/135576111795162910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this survey was to investigate the views of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on their perceived roles and the barriers regarding dental care of patients following head and neck radio-therapy.

Methods: From a total of 1163 GDPs on the Mersey Postgraduate Dental Deanery mailing list, 369 were selected at random. Questionnaires were sent out in February 2010 followed by reminders a month later. A study-specific questionnaire was piloted prior to the survey.

Results: One hundred and ninety-eight of the potential 336 respondents returned valid questionnaires, a response rate of 59%. They did not respond to all questions. Of those who responded, 99/188 (53%) were either 'not at all' or 'little' happy about managing these patients and 118/183 (64%) and 100/173 (58%), respectively, perceived that complex management and the new General Dental Services (nGDS) contract introduced in 2006 were 'quite a bit' or 'very much' barriers to treatment. The majority of the respondents felt that they were 'quite a bit' or 'very much' happy to carry out routine fillings (177/195; 90%), periodontal treatment (166/195; 85%), removable dentures (161/195; 83%), crown and bridge work (123/192; 64%), and root canal therapy (114/195; 58%) but only 53/191 (28%) to perform dental extractions. Over half of the respondents felt that they had 'quite a bit' or a 'main role' in managing radiotherapy caries, xerostomia, detecting recurrence and offering smoking-cessation advice.

Conclusion: The majority of the GDPs who responded had been involved in the management of patients who had undergone radio-therapy to the head and neck. A substantial number perceived barriers to care, such as the complexity of the treatment and the nGDS contract. These findings need further investigation. Continuing professional development would be helpful to improve GDPs' confidence in dealing with this group of patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对英格兰西北部普通牙科医生进行的一项关于头颈部放疗后患者牙科护理的调查。
目的:本调查的目的是调查全科牙科医生(gdp)对他们的角色认知和头颈部放疗后患者牙科护理的障碍的看法。方法:从Mersey Postgraduate Dental Deanery邮寄列表中的1163个gdp中随机抽取369个。调查问卷于2010年2月发出,一个月后收到提醒。在调查之前,试点了一份研究特定问卷。结果:336名潜在回答者中,198人回复有效问卷,回复率59%。他们没有回答所有的问题。在这些回应者中,99/188(53%)的人对管理这些病人“完全不满意”或“很少”满意,118/183(64%)和100/173(58%)的人分别认为复杂的管理和2006年引入的新的普通牙科服务(nGDS)合同对治疗构成“相当大”或“非常大”的障碍。大多数受访者认为他们“相当”或“非常”乐意进行常规补牙(177/195;90%),牙周治疗(166/195;85%),活动义齿(161/195;83%),冠和桥工作(123/192;64%)和根管治疗(114/195;58%),但只有53/191(28%)进行拔牙。超过一半的受访者认为,他们在治疗放疗龋齿、口干症、发现复发和提供戒烟建议方面发挥了“相当大”或“主要作用”。结论:大多数有反应的国内生产总值参与了头颈部放疗患者的管理。许多人认为护理存在障碍,例如治疗的复杂性和nGDS合同。这些发现需要进一步调查。持续的专业发展将有助于提高国内生产总值在处理这类患者时的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK) at 20 years. A patient's view of dentistry 20 years ago, now, and in 20 years' time. Primary Dental Care: past, present and future. Primary dental care: time to revise the definition? Prim Dent Care 2000. 7(3):93-96. Dental specialist lists: are they necessary?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1