4.1 Article

Understanding dentists' caries management: The COM-B ICCMS™ questionnaire

期刊

COMMUNITY DENTISTRY AND ORAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 545-554

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12388

关键词

behavioral science; caries detection/diagnosis/prevention; caries treatment; clinical-practice guidelines; evidence-based dentistry/health care; statistics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To design and validate a questionnaire to measure caries management based on the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior model (COM-B) and the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS (TM)). Methods Results A combination of Cariology and Psychology experts developed a 79-item pool that measured the COM-B components according to the ICCMS (TM) caries management recommended behaviours. After face and content validation and a pilot study, two samples of Colombian dentists participated: clinicians (n = 277) and clinical-practice educators (n = 212). Using parallel analysis and exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM), the questionnaire was reduced to a 47-item 5-factor instrument that demonstrated good internal consistency and validity properties, including a robust factor structure, measurement invariance across samples and high predictive validity of ICCMS (TM) recommended behaviours. Scales' mean scores showed that dentists were conducting recommended behaviours most-of-the-time (Behavior), showed high confidence in their ability to conduct these behaviours (Capability) and considered recommendations as highly relevant (Opportunity-Relevance), while their appraisals of the available resources (Opportunity-Resources) and remuneration (Motivation) were notably lower. Conclusion Overall, the findings highlight the practical utility of the COM-B ICCMS (TM) Questionnaire in understanding the potential antecedent variables that may explain dentists' behaviours related to caries diagnosis and management and in suggesting avenues for achieving a positive change in their behaviour.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据