4.1 Review

Labels and descriptions of dental behaviour support techniques: A scoping review of clinical practice guidelines

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12890

Keywords

anxiety; behavioral science; special care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to identify the labels and descriptors used to describe techniques used in oral healthcare. A total of 51 distinct techniques were identified, with general anaesthesia being the most commonly reported technique. The study also explores the categorization of these techniques, with "Behaviour management" being the most commonly used term.
IntroductionThere is no agreed taxonomy of the techniques used to support patients to receive professional oral healthcare. This lack of specification leads to imprecision in describing, understanding, teaching and implementing behaviour support techniques in dentistry (DBS). MethodsThis review aims to identify the labels and associated descriptors used by practitioners to describe DBS techniques, as a first step in developing a shared terminology for DBS techniques. Following registration of a protocol, a scoping review limited to Clinical Practice Guidelines only was undertaken to identify the labels and descriptors used to refer to DBS techniques. ResultsFrom 5317 screened records, 30 were included, generating a list of 51 distinct DBS techniques. General anaesthesia was the most commonly reported DBS (n = 21). This review also explores what term is given to DBS techniques as a group (Behaviour management was most commonly used (n = 8)) and how these techniques were categorized (mainly distinguishing between pharmacological and non-pharmacological). ConclusionsThis is the first attempt to generate a list of techniques that can be selected for patients and marks an initial step in future efforts at agreeing and categorizing these techniques into an accepted taxonomy, with all the benefits this brings to research, education, practice and patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available