Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method
Identifieur interne : 000D58 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000D57; suivant : 000D59Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method
Auteurs : E. B. Özhayat ; K. Gotfredsen ; B. Elverdam ; B. ÖwallSource :
- Journal of Oral Rehabilitation [ 0305-182X ] ; 2009-10.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Anterior tooth spaces, Blackwell publishing, Categorization, Clinical examination, Clinical method, Cue, Dent, Dental patients, Dental status variables, Dental treatment, Dentist issues, Dentistry, History takings, Important cues, Individual quality, Interview method, Interview technique, Management strategies, Median number, More cues, Oral health, Oral quality, Oral rehabilitation, Oral situation, Overall score, Participant, Physical issues, Present study, Prosthesis, Prosthodontics, Psychological issues, Qualitative analysis, Qualitative difference, Relative importance, Reliability, Sample size, Seiqoldw, Takings, Traditional history, Traditional history takings, Treatment planning, Weighting.
- Teeft :
- Anterior tooth spaces, Blackwell publishing, Categorization, Clinical examination, Clinical method, Cue, Dent, Dental patients, Dental status variables, Dental treatment, Dentist issues, Dentistry, History takings, Important cues, Individual quality, Interview method, Interview technique, Management strategies, Median number, More cues, Oral health, Oral quality, Oral rehabilitation, Oral situation, Overall score, Participant, Physical issues, Present study, Prosthesis, Prosthodontics, Psychological issues, Qualitative analysis, Qualitative difference, Relative importance, Reliability, Sample size, Seiqoldw, Takings, Traditional history, Traditional history takings, Treatment planning, Weighting.
Abstract
Summary Decision making in oral rehabilitation is often based on diagnoses related to impairment of different oral functions. In making the decision when to treat, the dentist must work in cooperation with the patient. By incorporating patient‐generated aspects into the decision making process, the dentist finds it easier to decide if and why treatment should be undertaken and what treatment modality to use. The purpose of this study was to describe the potential of an interview method, the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life‐Direct Weighting’ (SEIQoL‐DW), and compare it with a traditional history taking, in generating information to be used in decision making in oral rehabilitation. Fifty‐seven participants in need of oral rehabilitation were enrolled in the study. The participants underwent a traditional history taking and were interviewed using the SEIQoL‐DW method. The SEIQoL‐DW generated a high number of cues for all participants. Significantly more cues and additional information were generated by the SEIQoL‐DW than by the traditional history taking. The additional information concerned consultation and dentist issues, psychological aspects and treatment preferences. A high percentage of the participants were positive towards the use of the SEIQoL‐DW method in their treatment planning. The SEIQoL‐DW was considered to be a viable tool for decision making in oral rehabilitation.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title><author><name sortKey="Ozhayat, E B" sort="Ozhayat, E B" uniqKey="Ozhayat E" first="E. B." last="Özhayat">E. B. Özhayat</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gotfredsen, K" sort="Gotfredsen, K" uniqKey="Gotfredsen K" first="K." last="Gotfredsen">K. Gotfredsen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Elverdam, B" sort="Elverdam, B" uniqKey="Elverdam B" first="B." last="Elverdam">B. Elverdam</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Owall, B" sort="Owall, B" uniqKey="Owall B" first="B." last="Öwall">B. Öwall</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C</idno><date when="2009" year="2009">2009</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000D58</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000D58</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title><author><name sortKey="Ozhayat, E B" sort="Ozhayat, E B" uniqKey="Ozhayat E" first="E. B." last="Özhayat">E. B. Özhayat</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Gotfredsen, K" sort="Gotfredsen, K" uniqKey="Gotfredsen K" first="K." last="Gotfredsen">K. Gotfredsen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Elverdam, B" sort="Elverdam, B" uniqKey="Elverdam B" first="B." last="Elverdam">B. Elverdam</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Owall, B" sort="Owall, B" uniqKey="Owall B" first="B." last="Öwall">B. Öwall</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">36</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="726">726</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="736">736</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">11</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2009-10">2009-10</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0305-182X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Anterior tooth spaces</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Categorization</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Clinical method</term><term>Cue</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental patients</term><term>Dental status variables</term><term>Dental treatment</term><term>Dentist issues</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>History takings</term><term>Important cues</term><term>Individual quality</term><term>Interview method</term><term>Interview technique</term><term>Management strategies</term><term>Median number</term><term>More cues</term><term>Oral health</term><term>Oral quality</term><term>Oral rehabilitation</term><term>Oral situation</term><term>Overall score</term><term>Participant</term><term>Physical issues</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Psychological issues</term><term>Qualitative analysis</term><term>Qualitative difference</term><term>Relative importance</term><term>Reliability</term><term>Sample size</term><term>Seiqoldw</term><term>Takings</term><term>Traditional history</term><term>Traditional history takings</term><term>Treatment planning</term><term>Weighting</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Anterior tooth spaces</term><term>Blackwell publishing</term><term>Categorization</term><term>Clinical examination</term><term>Clinical method</term><term>Cue</term><term>Dent</term><term>Dental patients</term><term>Dental status variables</term><term>Dental treatment</term><term>Dentist issues</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>History takings</term><term>Important cues</term><term>Individual quality</term><term>Interview method</term><term>Interview technique</term><term>Management strategies</term><term>Median number</term><term>More cues</term><term>Oral health</term><term>Oral quality</term><term>Oral rehabilitation</term><term>Oral situation</term><term>Overall score</term><term>Participant</term><term>Physical issues</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prosthesis</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Psychological issues</term><term>Qualitative analysis</term><term>Qualitative difference</term><term>Relative importance</term><term>Reliability</term><term>Sample size</term><term>Seiqoldw</term><term>Takings</term><term>Traditional history</term><term>Traditional history takings</term><term>Treatment planning</term><term>Weighting</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Summary Decision making in oral rehabilitation is often based on diagnoses related to impairment of different oral functions. In making the decision when to treat, the dentist must work in cooperation with the patient. By incorporating patient‐generated aspects into the decision making process, the dentist finds it easier to decide if and why treatment should be undertaken and what treatment modality to use. The purpose of this study was to describe the potential of an interview method, the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life‐Direct Weighting’ (SEIQoL‐DW), and compare it with a traditional history taking, in generating information to be used in decision making in oral rehabilitation. Fifty‐seven participants in need of oral rehabilitation were enrolled in the study. The participants underwent a traditional history taking and were interviewed using the SEIQoL‐DW method. The SEIQoL‐DW generated a high number of cues for all participants. Significantly more cues and additional information were generated by the SEIQoL‐DW than by the traditional history taking. The additional information concerned consultation and dentist issues, psychological aspects and treatment preferences. A high percentage of the participants were positive towards the use of the SEIQoL‐DW method in their treatment planning. The SEIQoL‐DW was considered to be a viable tool for decision making in oral rehabilitation.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>cue</json:string><json:string>traditional history</json:string><json:string>oral rehabilitation</json:string><json:string>dental status variables</json:string><json:string>categorization</json:string><json:string>individual quality</json:string><json:string>blackwell publishing</json:string><json:string>prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>history takings</json:string><json:string>prosthesis</json:string><json:string>seiqoldw</json:string><json:string>treatment planning</json:string><json:string>more cues</json:string><json:string>psychological issues</json:string><json:string>overall score</json:string><json:string>participant</json:string><json:string>clinical examination</json:string><json:string>relative importance</json:string><json:string>physical issues</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>weighting</json:string><json:string>anterior tooth spaces</json:string><json:string>dental treatment</json:string><json:string>interview technique</json:string><json:string>interview method</json:string><json:string>oral health</json:string><json:string>sample size</json:string><json:string>median number</json:string><json:string>oral situation</json:string><json:string>oral quality</json:string><json:string>traditional history takings</json:string><json:string>dentist issues</json:string><json:string>takings</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>dental patients</json:string><json:string>clinical method</json:string><json:string>important cues</json:string><json:string>management strategies</json:string><json:string>qualitative analysis</json:string><json:string>qualitative difference</json:string><json:string>dent</json:string><json:string>reliability</json:string><json:string>previous study</json:string><json:string>quantitative difference</json:string><json:string>seiqoldw cues</json:string><json:string>aspects problems</json:string><json:string>traditional records</json:string><json:string>life aspects</json:string><json:string>seiqoldw score</json:string><json:string>anterior tooth space</json:string><json:string>natural teeth</json:string><json:string>repetition extractions</json:string><json:string>identical cues</json:string><json:string>maximum variation</json:string><json:string>good strength</json:string><json:string>different types</json:string><json:string>consultation dentist issues</json:string><json:string>tooth spaces</json:string><json:string>undergraduate students</json:string><json:string>treatment issues</json:string><json:string>average time</json:string><json:string>front teeth</json:string><json:string>mobile teeth</json:string><json:string>high amount</json:string><json:string>clinical decision</json:string><json:string>traditional history takings cues</json:string><json:string>dental school</json:string><json:string>life measures</json:string><json:string>main results</json:string><json:string>dental status</json:string><json:string>dentist patient relationship</json:string><json:string>oral function</json:string><json:string>more aspects</json:string><json:string>useful information</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic treatment</json:string><json:string>tooth loss</json:string><json:string>ohrqol instruments</json:string><json:string>psychological aspects</json:string><json:string>care utilization</json:string><json:string>additional information</json:string><json:string>swed dent</json:string><json:string>conceptual analysis</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>health qual life outcomes</json:string><json:string>community dent</json:string><json:string>community dent health</json:string><json:string>oral rehabil</json:string><json:string>same time</json:string><json:string>sage publications</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>E. B. ÖZHAYAT</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>K. GOTFREDSEN</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>B. ELVERDAM</name><affiliations><json:string>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>B. ÖWALL</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>decision making</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral rehabilitation</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>interview</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral health related quality of life</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>treatment planning</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>prosthodontics</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JOOR1983</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-RXKFQ40D-0</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Summary Decision making in oral rehabilitation is often based on diagnoses related to impairment of different oral functions. In making the decision when to treat, the dentist must work in cooperation with the patient. By incorporating patient‐generated aspects into the decision making process, the dentist finds it easier to decide if and why treatment should be undertaken and what treatment modality to use. The purpose of this study was to describe the potential of an interview method, the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life‐Direct Weighting’ (SEIQoL‐DW), and compare it with a traditional history taking, in generating information to be used in decision making in oral rehabilitation. Fifty‐seven participants in need of oral rehabilitation were enrolled in the study. The participants underwent a traditional history taking and were interviewed using the SEIQoL‐DW method. The SEIQoL‐DW generated a high number of cues for all participants. Significantly more cues and additional information were generated by the SEIQoL‐DW than by the traditional history taking. The additional information concerned consultation and dentist issues, psychological aspects and treatment preferences. A high percentage of the participants were positive towards the use of the SEIQoL‐DW method in their treatment planning. The SEIQoL‐DW was considered to be a viable tool for decision making in oral rehabilitation.</abstract><qualityIndicators><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>210</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1429</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><score>9.52</score><pdfWordCount>5930</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>37986</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 782.362 pts</pdfPageSize></qualityIndicators><title>Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title><pmid><json:string>19664009</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0305-182X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1365-2842</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>JOOR</json:string></publisherId><volume>36</volume><issue>10</issue><pages><first>726</first><last>736</last><total>11</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2009</json:string><json:string>from June 2007 to September 2007</json:string><json:string>2004</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>University of Copenhagen</json:string><json:string>SAS Institute Inc</json:string><json:string>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</json:string><json:string>American College of Prosthodontists</json:string><json:string>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark SUMMARY Decision</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName><json:string>Nice</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Mountain et al.</json:string><json:string>Moons et al.</json:string><json:string>Ozhayat et al.</json:string><json:string>Oates et al.</json:string><json:string>Narby et al.</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-RXKFQ40D-0</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2009</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2009</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x</json:string></doi><id>1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2009-10"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title><title level="a" type="short">PATIENT‐GENERATED ASPECTS IN ORAL REHABILITATION</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">E. B.</forename><surname>ÖZHAYAT</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">K.</forename><surname>GOTFREDSEN</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">B.</forename><surname>ELVERDAM</surname></persName><affiliation>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark<address><country key="DK"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">B.</forename><surname>ÖWALL</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RXKFQ40D-0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x</idno><idno type="unit">JOOR1983</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:JOOR.JOOR1983.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title><title level="j" type="alt">JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION</title><idno type="pISSN">0305-182X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/jor.2009.36.issue-10</idno><idno type="product">JOOR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">36</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">10</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="726">726</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="736">736</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">11</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2009-10"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Summary </hi> Decision making in oral rehabilitation is often based on diagnoses related to impairment of different oral functions. In making the decision when to treat, the dentist must work in cooperation with the patient. By incorporating patient‐generated aspects into the decision making process, the dentist finds it easier to decide if and why treatment should be undertaken and what treatment modality to use. The purpose of this study was to describe the potential of an interview method, the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life‐Direct Weighting’ (SEIQoL‐DW), and compare it with a traditional history taking, in generating information to be used in decision making in oral rehabilitation. Fifty‐seven participants in need of oral rehabilitation were enrolled in the study. The participants underwent a traditional history taking and were interviewed using the SEIQoL‐DW method. The SEIQoL‐DW generated a high number of cues for all participants. Significantly more cues and additional information were generated by the SEIQoL‐DW than by the traditional history taking. The additional information concerned consultation and dentist issues, psychological aspects and treatment preferences. A high percentage of the participants were positive towards the use of the SEIQoL‐DW method in their treatment planning. The SEIQoL‐DW was considered to be a viable tool for decision making in oral rehabilitation.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">decision making</term><term xml:id="k2">oral rehabilitation</term><term xml:id="k3">interview</term><term xml:id="k4">oral health related quality of life</term><term xml:id="k5">treatment planning</term><term xml:id="k6">prosthodontics</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</doi><issn type="print">0305-182X</issn><issn type="electronic">1365-2842</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JOOR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL ORAL REHABILITATION">Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="10010"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jor.2009.36.issue-10</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="36">36</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="10">10</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2009-10">October 2009</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="4" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JOOR1983"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="11"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2009-08-02"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2009-09-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.1" date="2014-03-20"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-30"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="726">726</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="736">736</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Esben Boeskov Özhayat, Department of Oral rehabilitation, Copenhagen School of Dentistry, Nørre Alle 20, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. E‐mail: <email>ebo@odont.ku.dk</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JOOR.JOOR1983.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Accepted for publication 21 July 2009</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="1"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="5"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title><title type="shortAuthors">E. B. ÖZHAYAT <i>et al.</i></title><title type="short">PATIENT‐GENERATED ASPECTS IN ORAL REHABILITATION</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>E. B.</givenNames><familyName>ÖZHAYAT</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>K.</givenNames><familyName>GOTFREDSEN</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>B.</givenNames><familyName>ELVERDAM</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>B.</givenNames><familyName>ÖWALL</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="DK"><unparsedAffiliation>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">decision making</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">oral rehabilitation</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">interview</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">oral health related quality of life</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">treatment planning</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">prosthodontics</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Summary </b> Decision making in oral rehabilitation is often based on diagnoses related to impairment of different oral functions. In making the decision when to treat, the dentist must work in cooperation with the patient. By incorporating patient‐generated aspects into the decision making process, the dentist finds it easier to decide if and why treatment should be undertaken and what treatment modality to use. The purpose of this study was to describe the potential of an interview method, the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life‐Direct Weighting’ (SEIQoL‐DW), and compare it with a traditional history taking, in generating information to be used in decision making in oral rehabilitation. Fifty‐seven participants in need of oral rehabilitation were enrolled in the study. The participants underwent a traditional history taking and were interviewed using the SEIQoL‐DW method. The SEIQoL‐DW generated a high number of cues for all participants. Significantly more cues and additional information were generated by the SEIQoL‐DW than by the traditional history taking. The additional information concerned consultation and dentist issues, psychological aspects and treatment preferences. A high percentage of the participants were positive towards the use of the SEIQoL‐DW method in their treatment planning. The SEIQoL‐DW was considered to be a viable tool for decision making in oral rehabilitation.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>PATIENT‐GENERATED ASPECTS IN ORAL REHABILITATION</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">E. B.</namePart><namePart type="family">ÖZHAYAT</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">K.</namePart><namePart type="family">GOTFREDSEN</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B.</namePart><namePart type="family">ELVERDAM</namePart><affiliation>Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B.</namePart><namePart type="family">ÖWALL</namePart><affiliation>Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2009-10</dateIssued><edition>Accepted for publication 21 July 2009</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2009</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">1</extent><extent unit="tables">5</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Summary Decision making in oral rehabilitation is often based on diagnoses related to impairment of different oral functions. In making the decision when to treat, the dentist must work in cooperation with the patient. By incorporating patient‐generated aspects into the decision making process, the dentist finds it easier to decide if and why treatment should be undertaken and what treatment modality to use. The purpose of this study was to describe the potential of an interview method, the ‘Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life‐Direct Weighting’ (SEIQoL‐DW), and compare it with a traditional history taking, in generating information to be used in decision making in oral rehabilitation. Fifty‐seven participants in need of oral rehabilitation were enrolled in the study. The participants underwent a traditional history taking and were interviewed using the SEIQoL‐DW method. The SEIQoL‐DW generated a high number of cues for all participants. Significantly more cues and additional information were generated by the SEIQoL‐DW than by the traditional history taking. The additional information concerned consultation and dentist issues, psychological aspects and treatment preferences. A high percentage of the participants were positive towards the use of the SEIQoL‐DW method in their treatment planning. The SEIQoL‐DW was considered to be a viable tool for decision making in oral rehabilitation.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>decision making</topic><topic>oral rehabilitation</topic><topic>interview</topic><topic>oral health related quality of life</topic><topic>treatment planning</topic><topic>prosthodontics</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Oral Rehabilitation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0305-182X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2842</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JOOR</identifier><part><date>2009</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>36</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>10</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>726</start><end>736</end><total>11</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-RXKFQ40D-0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01983.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JOOR1983</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000D58 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000D58 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:1B690FB6A8DD1873A89C55CF970F48CC550B596C
|texte= Patient‐generated aspects in oral rehabilitation decision making I. Comparison of traditional history taking and an individual systematic interview method
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |