OBJECTIVES: To determine dentists' and dental hygienists' intervention activity towards patients who smoke or use snus (oral moist snuff), and to establish which factors impede interventions and cause variations in approach. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 1500 dentists (response rate: 68%) and all dental hygienists in the country (522 in all; response rate: 61%). RESULTS: Dental hygienists conversed with patients on smoking habits on average 18 min/week, while the dentists spent 13 min doing the same. The issue of snus-use was discussed, on average, for 3 min. In eight of 10 consultations with patients suffering from tobacco-induced disorders in the oral cavity, the dentists/dental hygienists raised the subject of smoking habits with the patient. In cases without visible tobacco-induced symptoms, inquiries were made concerning smoking habits in three of 10 dentist consultations and four of 10 consultations with dental hygienists. For first-time consultations, six of 10 were queried concerning their smoking habits by their dentist, while dental hygienists enquired in seven of 10 cases. Self-reported skills, perceived barriers and attitudes explained far more of the variance in intervention impact than background variables. There were moderate differences between dentists and dental hygienists. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in smoking and snus-use prevention efforts in the dental sector. If staff is to be rid of their misconceptions regarding the efficacy of intervention, it is important to inform them about the encouraging results at the population level. Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004
OBJECTIVES: To determine dentists' and dental hygienists' intervention activity towards patients who smoke or use snus (oral moist snuff), and to establish which factors impede interventions and cause variations in approach. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 1500 dentists (response rate: 68%) and all dental hygienists in the country (522 in all; response rate: 61%). RESULTS: Dental hygienists conversed with patients on smoking habits on average 18 min/week, while the dentists spent 13 min doing the same. The issue of snus-use was discussed, on average, for 3 min. In eight of 10 consultations with patients suffering from tobacco-induced disorders in the oral cavity, the dentists/dental hygienists raised the subject of smoking habits with the patient. In cases without visible tobacco-induced symptoms, inquiries were made concerning smoking habits in three of 10 dentist consultations and four of 10 consultations with dental hygienists. For first-time consultations, six of 10 were queried concerning their smoking habits by their dentist, while dental hygienists enquired in seven of 10 cases. Self-reported skills, perceived barriers and attitudes explained far more of the variance in intervention impact than background variables. There were moderate differences between dentists and dental hygienists. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvement in smoking and snus-use prevention efforts in the dental sector. If staff is to be rid of their misconceptions regarding the efficacy of intervention, it is important to inform them about the encouraging results at the population level. Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004
Authors: Tarja Tanner; Håkon Rukke Valen; Liv Grøtvedt; Simen E Kopperud; Rune Becher; Line Schrøder Karlsen; Vibeke Ansteinsson Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res Date: 2019-03-13