Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Risk Judgment by General Dental Practitioners: Rational but Uninformed
Health Evidence Network, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark..
Department of War Studies, Swedish National Defence College, Stockholm, Sweden.
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).
2010 (English)In: Biomedical Informatics Insights, E-ISSN 1178-2226, Vol. 2010, no 3, p. 11-17Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Decisions by dentists to administer antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infectious complications in patients involves professional risk assessment. While recommendations for rational use have been published, several studies have shown that dentists have low adherence to these recommendations. Objective: To examine general dental practitioners’ (GDPs’) assessments of the risk of complications if not administering antibiotic prophylaxis in connection with dental procedures in patients with specific medical conditions. Methods: Postal questionnaires in combination with telephone interviews. Risk assessments were made using visual analogue scales (VAS), where zero represented “insignificant risk” and 100 represented a “very significant risk”. Results: Response rate: 51%. The mean risk assessments were higher for GDPs who administered antibiotics (mean = 54, SD = 23, range 26–72 mm on the VAS) than those who did not (mean = 14, SD = 12, range 7–31 mm) (P < 0.05). Generally, GDPs made higher risk assessments for patients with medical conditions that are included in recommendations than those with conditions that are not included. Overall, risk assessments were higher for tooth removal than for scaling or root canal treatment, even though the risk assessments should be considered equal for these interventions. Conclusions: GDPs’ risk assessments were rational but uninformed. They administered antibiotics in a manner that was consistent with their risk assessments. Their risk assessments, however, were overestimated. Inaccurate judgments of risk should not be expected to disappear in the presence of new information. To achieve change, clinicians must be motivated to improve behaviour and an evidence- based implementation strategy is required.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Libertas Academica , 2010. Vol. 2010, no 3, p. 11-17
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-7124DOI: 10.4137/bii.s4067ISI: 000215018200002PubMedID: 27458329Local ID: 10650OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-7124DiVA, id: diva2:1404078
Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-05-23Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Antibiotic prophylaxis in general oral health care: the perspective of decision making
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Antibiotic prophylaxis in general oral health care: the perspective of decision making
2009 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [sv]

I Sverige ger läkemedelskommittéerna i landstingen ut rekommendationer för att stödja optimal användning av läkemedel till patienter. Rekommendationerna inkluderar råd om när antibiotika bör användas i förebyggande syfte (antibiotikaprofylax) i tandvården. Detta kan vara aktuellt i samband med tandingrepp för att förebygga infektioner hos patienter med specifika medicinska tillstånd, t.ex. hjärtklaffsprotes, diabetes eller njurtransplantat. Vid användning av antibiotika finns risker för oönskade reaktioner hos patienten i form av hudutslag, diarréer men även livshotande allergiska reaktioner. På samhällsnivå finns risk att bakterier blir resistenta mot antibiotika. Med bakgrund av detta bör det finnas en strävan efter att minimera användning av antibiotika.I denna avhandling har syftet varit att 1) utvärdera de vetenskapliga bevisen i litteraturen för att använda antibiotikaprofylax i tandvården, samt överensstämmelsen mellan rekommendationer från läkemedelskommittéerna och vetenskapliga bevis, 2) studera tandläkares användning av antibiotikaprofylax och hur väl de följer rekommendationer, 3) studera tandläkares säkerhet i sina beslut om att ge antibiotikaprofylax och 4) studera tandläkares riskbedömningar i sina beslut om att ge antibiotikaprofylax.Metoden för det första syftet var en systematisk litteraturöversikt av vetenskapliga studier. Det systematiska tillvägagångssättet inkluderade definierade inklusions- och exklusionskriterier för studierna, på förhand definierade granskningsprotokoll av studiernas kvalitet, samt en övergripande kvalitetsbedömning av de vetenskapliga bevisen. För resterande syften genomfördes en enkätundersökning. Enkäten innehöll åtta simulerade patientfall med olika medicinska tillstånd, inklusive tillstånd där antibiotikaprofylax bör ges enligt rekommendationer och tillstånd där antibiotika inte bör ges. Enkäten skickades till 200 slumpmässigt utvalda allmäntandläkare i två landsting i Sverige, Skåne och Örebro läns landsting. Svarsfrekvensen var 51% (101/200). Tandläkarna fick svara på om de skulle ge antibiotikaprofylax, hur säkra de var i sina beslut och hur de bedömde risken för komplikationer om antibiotikaprofylax inte användes.Resultaten kan sammanfattas i följande punkter:• Det saknas vetenskapliga bevis som stödjer användning av antibiotikaprofylax• Rekommendationerna inkluderade flera medicinska tillstånd där antibiotikaprofylax bör ges• Det fanns en stor variation i tandläkarnas sätt att använda antibiotikaprofylax• Tandläkarna följde rekommendationer i liten omfattning• Tandläkarna hade hög säkerhet i sina beslut, oavsett om de gav antibiotikaprofylax eller ej och oavsett om deras beslut var i enlighet med rekommendationer eller ej• Tandläkarnas riskbedömningar var rationella men byggde på bristande kunskap, dvs. de gav antibiotikaprofylax på ett konsekvent sätt utifrån sina riskbedömningar, men riskbedömningarna var överskattade och felaktiga jämfört med de verkliga riskerna.Slutsatser:Det saknas vetenskapliga bevis för att använda antibiotikaprofylax i tandvården. Trots det inkluderar rekommendationerna en mängd medicinska tillstånd. För att minimera användning av antibiotika, bör rekommendationer stramas upp för att vara mer i överensstämmelse med vetenskapliga bevis. Nästa problem var tandläkarnas stora variation i sina beslut och att de endast i liten omfattning följde rekommendationer. Detta visar att besluten inte är optimala och att de bör förbättras. Potentiella hinder för en sådan förbättring kan vara att tandläkarna var väldigt säkra i sina beslut och att de gjorde överskattade och felaktiga riskbedömningar. Tidigare forskning visar att det är mycket svårt att implementera rekommendationer för att förändra beteende hos sjukvårdspersonal. Troligen skulle det innebära stora utmaningar i att lyckas förändra tandläkares sätt att använda antibiotikaprofylax.

Abstract [en]

In Sweden, pharmaceutical committees in the counties devote resources to recommendations aimed at supporting optimal medication for patients. These recommendations include oral health care, with advice on when to administer antibiotic prophylaxis in connection with dental procedures to prevent infectious complications in patients with specific medical conditions. There has been much discussion about the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in oral health care and the evidence that the recommendations are based upon is questionned. When using antibiotics, there exist risk of adverse events such as skin rashes, diarrhoea or life-threatening anaphylactic reactions as well as the risk of developing resistant bacterial strains. With this background the use of antibiotics should be minimised.The objectives of this thesis were to: 1) evaluate the evidence in the literature for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in oral health care, and the agreement between Swedish recommendations and evidence, 2) examine general dental practitioners’ (GDPs’) administration strategies of antibiotic prophylaxis, and the agreement between GDPs’ administration strategies and recommendations, 3) examine GDPs’ confidence in their decisions on administration of antibiotic prophylaxis and 4) examine GDPs’ assessment of risk in their decisions on administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. The method for the first objective was a systematic literature review of scientific studies. The systematic approach included defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, pre-defined protocols for data extraction and quality assessment of studies, as well as an overall evaluation of the quality of evidence. For the other objectives a questionnaire study was conducted. The questionnaire comprised eight simulated cases of patients with different medical conditions. We included conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered when performing dental procedures according to recommendations, and conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered. For each medical condition three different dental procedures (scaling, tooth removal and root canal treatment) were presented. These dental procedures could cause bleeding to various degrees. The questionnaire was sent to 200 randomly selected GDPs in Skåne and Örebro counties. The response rate was 51% (101/200). The GDPs were asked to answer whether they would administer antibiotic prophylaxis, how confident they were in their decisions and their assessment of the risk of complications if antibiotic prophylaxis was not administered. The results are summarised in the following most important key points:• According to evidence, there exist no medical condition for which antibiotic prophylaxis should be used• Swedish recommendations include several medical conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis should be used• There was a large variation in GDPs’ administration strategies• Agreement between GDPs’ administration strategies and recommendations was low• GDPs were highly confident about their decisions, regardless of whether they administered antibiotic prophylaxis or not, and regardless of whether their decisions were according to recommendations or not• GDPs’ risk assessments were rational but uninformed, i.e. they administered antibiotic prophylaxis in a manner that was consistent with their risk assessments, but their risk assessments were overestimated and inaccurate in terms of the actual risks. In conclusion: According to evidence, there exist no medical condition for which antibiotic prophylaxis should be used. Still, Swedish recommendations include several medical conditions for which antibiotic prophylaxis should be used. To avoid the risk of adverse events and of developing resistant bacterial strains, Swedish recommendations should be more evidence-based. GDPs varied greatly in their administration strategies and their decisions exhibited low agreement with recommendations. This shows that the decisions of GDPs are less than optimal and should be improved. The high confidence that GDPs expressed in their decisions, along with their overestimated and inaccurate risk assessments, might serve as potential barriers to behavioural modifications. Previous research suggest that it is very difficult to implement recommendations to change the behaviour of clinicians. Current knowledge about successful implementation strategies is limited. Changing GDPs’ decisions about administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is likely to be very difficult.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Malmö University, 2009. p. 122
Series
Doctoral Dissertation in Odontology
Keywords
Antibiotic prophylaxis, Decision making
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-7708 (URN)8171 (Local ID)91-7104-305-5 (ISBN)8171 (Archive number)8171 (OAI)
Note

Paper I and IV in dissertation as manuscript. 

Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-03-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(976 kB)139 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 976 kBChecksum SHA-512
de0cc8d0da2a3ceb27aff8a2b2e49266db5d48766ac886c3a1f7ef98d2379b947c8d935d4266d19fea997570a78f121dfca2d4a80386171ffe724979e3783500
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records

Knutsson, Kerstin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Knutsson, Kerstin
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Biomedical Informatics Insights
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 139 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 90 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf