T A Dyer1, P G Robinson. 1. Department of Oral Health and Development, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Claremont Crescent, Sheffield, UK. t.dyer@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate public awareness and the social acceptability of the use of dental therapists in dental care. METHOD: A telephone survey of a representative quota sample of 500 adults (>18 years of age) in South Yorkshire, England. RESULTS: Fifteen per cent of participants were aware of dental therapists as a professional group, of whom only three people correctly identified their 'permitted duties'. Those without problems of access to care were more likely to report awareness (P < 0.05). Fifty-seven per cent were willing to receive simple restorative treatment from a therapist, with acceptability predicted by being younger [OR 1.016 (95% CI: 1.015-1.017)] and having a perceived need for treatment [OR 1.301 (1.053-1.607)]. Fewer were willing to allow a therapist to restore a child's tooth (47%, P < 0.001, test for paired proportions) with acceptability predicted by being younger [OR 1.016 (1.015-1.017)] and being an irregular attender at the dentist [OR 1.309 (1.138-1.697)]. Forty per cent of participants expected to pay less for treatment provided by therapists with the acceptability of equal costs predicted by having access to care [OR 1.346 (1.017-1.781)]. CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for the use of dental therapists. They question patients' and the public's ability to provide informed consent for the treatment provided by them and identify a need for education of the public on the training and competence of therapists and the rationale for employing skill-mix in dentistry.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate public awareness and the social acceptability of the use of dental therapists in dental care. METHOD: A telephone survey of a representative quota sample of 500 adults (>18 years of age) in South Yorkshire, England. RESULTS: Fifteen per cent of participants were aware of dental therapists as a professional group, of whom only three people correctly identified their 'permitted duties'. Those without problems of access to care were more likely to report awareness (P < 0.05). Fifty-seven per cent were willing to receive simple restorative treatment from a therapist, with acceptability predicted by being younger [OR 1.016 (95% CI: 1.015-1.017)] and having a perceived need for treatment [OR 1.301 (1.053-1.607)]. Fewer were willing to allow a therapist to restore a child's tooth (47%, P < 0.001, test for paired proportions) with acceptability predicted by being younger [OR 1.016 (1.015-1.017)] and being an irregular attender at the dentist [OR 1.309 (1.138-1.697)]. Forty per cent of participants expected to pay less for treatment provided by therapists with the acceptability of equal costs predicted by having access to care [OR 1.346 (1.017-1.781)]. CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for the use of dental therapists. They question patients' and the public's ability to provide informed consent for the treatment provided by them and identify a need for education of the public on the training and competence of therapists and the rationale for employing skill-mix in dentistry.
Authors: Maria J Kersbergen; Nico H J Creugers; Vanessa R Y Hollaar; Miranda G H Laurant Journal: Eur J Dent Educ Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 2.355