Marieke M van der Zande1, Catherine Exley2, Samantha A Wilson1, Rebecca V Harris1. 1. Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 2. Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers to planned dental visiting, investigating how barriers interlink, how they accumulate and change, and how individuals envisage overcoming their combination of barriers through personal strategies. METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted of adult urgent dental care attenders who did not have a dentist, including 155 hours of nonparticipant observations, 97 interviews and 19 follow-up interviews in six urgent dental care settings. Data were analysed using constant comparison, first identifying barriers and personal strategies to overcome them, and subsequently analysing interlinks between barriers and personal strategies. RESULTS: Accounts of barriers to planned dental visiting encompassed multiple barriers, which related to socioeconomic circumstances as well as experiences of oral health care. Barriers were multi-layered and more difficult to overcome when occurring together. Personal strategies to overcome diverse barriers often hinged on increasing importance of oral health to individuals, yet this was not always sufficient. The combination of barriers participants experience was dynamic, changing due to personal, family, or employment circumstances, and with increasing severity of barriers over time. Over time, this could lead to higher cost, and additional barriers, particularly embarrassment. CONCLUSION: Barriers to planned dental visiting are complex, multi-layered and change over time, constituting a 'web of causation'. This adds a novel perspective to the literature on barriers to dental visiting, and requires that researchers, dental practitioners and policy makers remain open to barriers' interlinked effects, changes in primacy among individual patients' barriers, and their accumulation over time to better support uptake of planned dental visiting.
OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers to planned dental visiting, investigating how barriers interlink, how they accumulate and change, and how individuals envisage overcoming their combination of barriers through personal strategies. METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted of adult urgent dental care attenders who did not have a dentist, including 155 hours of nonparticipant observations, 97 interviews and 19 follow-up interviews in six urgent dental care settings. Data were analysed using constant comparison, first identifying barriers and personal strategies to overcome them, and subsequently analysing interlinks between barriers and personal strategies. RESULTS: Accounts of barriers to planned dental visiting encompassed multiple barriers, which related to socioeconomic circumstances as well as experiences of oral health care. Barriers were multi-layered and more difficult to overcome when occurring together. Personal strategies to overcome diverse barriers often hinged on increasing importance of oral health to individuals, yet this was not always sufficient. The combination of barriers participants experience was dynamic, changing due to personal, family, or employment circumstances, and with increasing severity of barriers over time. Over time, this could lead to higher cost, and additional barriers, particularly embarrassment. CONCLUSION: Barriers to planned dental visiting are complex, multi-layered and change over time, constituting a 'web of causation'. This adds a novel perspective to the literature on barriers to dental visiting, and requires that researchers, dental practitioners and policy makers remain open to barriers' interlinked effects, changes in primacy among individual patients' barriers, and their accumulation over time to better support uptake of planned dental visiting.
Authors: R Harris; V Lowers; C Hulme; G Burnside; A Best; J E Clarkson; R Cooke; M Van Der Zande; R Maitland Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 2.728