D S Brennan1, A J Spencer. 1. Dental School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Adelaide University, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine evaluations of patients by dentists, and analyse these by patient, visit and service characteristics. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Mailed questionnaires collected from a random sample of Australian dentists in 1997-98 (response rate = 60.3%; n = 345 private general practitioners provided service data). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three factor-based sub-scales ('payment', 'no problems', and 'knowledge') and an overall scale ('evaluation') were derived from a 5-item battery. Scale and sub-scale scores ranged between I and 5. Lower scores indicated better evaluation ratings. RESULTS: Nearly 60% of patients had better ratings (scores < or = 2) on the 'payment' and 'no problems' sub-scales, 39.9% on the 'knowledge' sub-scale, and 36.4% on the 'evaluation' scale. Better ratings on all sub-scales and the overall scale were associated with dentate patients, non-emergency visits, insurance, and no decayed teeth (chi2; P<0.05). Those with better 'evaluation' scale ratings (scores < or = 2.0), had higher [Poisson regression, P < or = 0.05; RR=Rate ratio] preventive (RR = 1.30), and crown and bridge rates (RR = 1.88), but lower extraction rates (RR = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Desirable characteristics of patients were associated with more favourable evaluation scores by their dentists. Patients with better evaluation scores received a more favourable service pattern.
OBJECTIVE: To examine evaluations of patients by dentists, and analyse these by patient, visit and service characteristics. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Mailed questionnaires collected from a random sample of Australian dentists in 1997-98 (response rate = 60.3%; n = 345 private general practitioners provided service data). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three factor-based sub-scales ('payment', 'no problems', and 'knowledge') and an overall scale ('evaluation') were derived from a 5-item battery. Scale and sub-scale scores ranged between I and 5. Lower scores indicated better evaluation ratings. RESULTS: Nearly 60% of patients had better ratings (scores < or = 2) on the 'payment' and 'no problems' sub-scales, 39.9% on the 'knowledge' sub-scale, and 36.4% on the 'evaluation' scale. Better ratings on all sub-scales and the overall scale were associated with dentate patients, non-emergency visits, insurance, and no decayed teeth (chi2; P<0.05). Those with better 'evaluation' scale ratings (scores < or = 2.0), had higher [Poisson regression, P < or = 0.05; RR=Rate ratio] preventive (RR = 1.30), and crown and bridge rates (RR = 1.88), but lower extraction rates (RR = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Desirable characteristics of patients were associated with more favourable evaluation scores by their dentists. Patients with better evaluation scores received a more favourable service pattern.