What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part I: Awareness and Selection Criteria, Infrastructure, and Dental Office Equipment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Awareness and Selection Criteria When Choosing a Dentist
3.2. Importance of Infrastructure as Criteria for the Choice of a Dentist
3.3. Importance of Dental Office Equipment as Criteria for the Choice of a Dentist
4. Discussion
4.1. Study Limitations
4.2. Interpretation of Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wolf, C.A.; Ramseier, C.A. The image of the dentist. Part 1: Results of a literature search. Schweiz Mon. Zahnmed 2012, 122, 121–132. [Google Scholar]
- Pohjola, V.; Lahti, S.; Vehkalahti, M.M.; Tolvanen, M.; Hausen, H. Association between Dental Fear and Dental Attendance among Adults in Finland. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2007, 65, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nitschke, I.; Stillhart, A.; Kunze, J. Utilization of Dental Services in Old Age. Swiss Dent. J. 2015, 125, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Nitschke, I.; Hahnel, S.; Jockusch, J. Health-Related Social and Ethical Considerations towards the Utilization of Dental Medical Services by Seniors: Influencing and Protective Factors, Vulnerability, Resilience and Sense of Coherence. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mittal, R.; Wong, M.L.; Koh, G.C.-H.; Ong, D.L.S.; Lee, Y.H.; Tan, M.N.; Allen, P.F. Factors Affecting Dental Service Utilisation among Older Singaporeans Eligible for Subsidized Dental Care—A Qualitative Study. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, C. Evidence Summary: What Do We Know from Qualitative Research about People’s Care-Seeking about Oral Health? Br. Dent. J. 2010, 209, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gragoll, I.; Schumann, L.; Neubauer, M.; Westphal, C.; Lang, H. Healthcare Avoidance: A Qualitative Study of Dental Care Avoidance in Germany in Terms of Emergent Behaviours and Characteristics. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mills, I.; Frost, J.; Cooper, C.; Moles, D.R.; Kay, E. Patient-Centred Care in General Dental Practice—A Systematic Review of the Literature. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scambler, S.; Delgado, M.; Asimakopoulou, K. Defining Patient-Centred Care in Dentistry? A Systematic Review of the Dental Literature. Br. Dent. J. 2016, 221, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rathert, C.; Wyrwich, M.D.; Boren, S.A. Patient-Centered Care and Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2013, 70, 351–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. People-Centred and Integrated Health Services: An Overview of the Evidence: Interim Report; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
- Holt, V.P.; McHugh, K. Factors Influencing Patient Loyalty to Dentist and Dental Practice. Br. Dent. J. 1997, 183, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lamprecht, R.; Struppek, J.; Heydecke, G.; Reissmann, D.R. Patients’ Criteria for Choosing a Dentist: Comparison between a University-Based Setting and Private Dental Practices. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lahti, S.; Tuutti, H.; Hausen, H.; Kaariainen, R. Dentist and Patient Opinions about the Ideal Dentist and Patient -Developing a Compact Questionnaire. Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1992, 20, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lahti, S.; Tuutti, H.; Hausen, H.; Kaarianen, R. Patients’ Expectations of an Ideal Dentist and Their Views Concerning the Dentist They Visited: Do the Views Conform to the Expectations and What Determines How Well They Conform? Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1996, 24, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.J.; Damiano, P.C.; Hand, J.; Denehy, G.E.; Cobb, D.S.; Qian, F. Consumers’ Choice of Dentists: How and Why People Choose Dental School Faculty Members as Their Oral Health Care Providers. J. Dent. Educ. 2012, 76, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gheorghiu, I.-M.; Scărlătescu, S.; Mitran, L.; Nicola, G.; Perlea, P.; Iliescu, A.A.; Mitran, M. Importanţa Relaţiei Dintre Medicul Dentist Şi Pacient Pentru Un Tratament Stomatologic de Succes. ORL.ro 2021, 3, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ungureanu, M.-I.; Mocean, F. What Do Patients Take into Account When They Choose Their Dentist? Implications for Quality Improvement. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2015, 9, 1715–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sbaraini, A.; Carter, S.M.; Evans, R.W.; Blinkhorn, A. Experiences of Dental Care: What Do Patients Value? BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012, 12, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burke, L.; Croucher, R. Criteria of Good Dental Practice Generated by General Dental Practitioners and Patients. Int. Dent. J. 1996, 46, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
- Gray, L.; McNeill, L.; Yi, W.; Zvonereva, A.; Brunton, P.; Mei, L. The “Business” of Dentistry: Consumers’ (Patients’) Criteria in the Selection and Evaluation of Dental Services. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corah, N.L.; O’Shea, R.M.; Bissell, G.D. The Dentist-Patient Relationship: Perceptions by Patients of Dentist Behavior in Relation to Satisfaction and Anxiety. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1985, 111, 443–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lahti, S.; Verkasalo, M.; Hausen, H.; Tuutti, H. Ideal Role Behaviours as Seen by Dentists and Patients Themselves and by Their Role Partners: Do They Differ? Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1996, 24, 245–248. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Fico, A.E.; Lagoe, C. Patients’ Perspectives of Oral Healthcare Providers’ Communication: Considering the Impact of Message Source and Content. Health Commun. 2018, 33, 1035–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendapudi, N.M.; Berry, L.L.; Frey, K.A.; Parish, J.T.; Rayburn, W.L. Patients’ Perspectives on Ideal Physician Behaviors. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2006, 81, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jones, L.M.; Huggins, T.J. Empathy in the Dentist-Patient Relationship: Review and Application. NZ Dent. J. 2014, 110, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
- Chapple, H.; Shah, S.; Caress, A.-L.; Kay, E.J. Exploring Dental Patients’ Preferred Roles in Treatment Decision-Making—A Novel Approach. Br. Dent. J. 2003, 194, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swami, V.; McClelland, A.; Bedi, R.; Furnham, A. The Influence of Practitioner Nationality, Experience, and Sex in Shaping Patient Preferences for Dentists. Int. Dent. J. 2011, 61, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, M.; Jameel, A.; Girach, M. Factors Affecting Patients’ Choice of Dental Services. Pak. Oral Dent. J. 2014, 34, 691–695. [Google Scholar]
- Chapon, M.-P.; Ghabi, A.; Choufani, C.; Caubere, A.; Moynot, J.-C.; Versier, G.; Wein, F.; Barbier, O. How Do Patients Choose Their Surgeon? Example of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 108, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaeed, S.; Alghurairi, N.; Almutairi, L.; Alossimi, A.; Bin Fadhl, A.; Abahussain, S. Factors That Affect Saudi Population Preferences Toward Their Dentist. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2021, 15, 2693–2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sever, I.; Verbič, M.; Sever, E.K. Valuing the Delivery of Dental Care: Heterogeneity in Patients’ Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Dental Care Attributes. J. Dent. 2018, 69, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klingenberg, A.; Walther, W.; Dörfer, C.; Szecsenyi, J. Wie bewerten Patienten ihre zahnärztliche Versorgung? Ergebnisse einer schriftlichen Befragung von Patienten bei niedergelassenen Zahnärzten. Gesundheitswesen 2008, 70, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchini, L.; Reynolds, J.C.; Caplan, D.J.; Sasser, S.; Russell, C. Predictors of Having a Dentist among Older Adults in Iowa. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2020, 48, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jockusch, J.; Hopfenmüller, W.; Nitschke, I. Influence of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia on Oral Health and the Utilization of Dental Services: Findings of the Oral Health, Bite Force and Dementia Study (OrBiD). BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sag, I.; Zengul, F.D.; Landry, A.Y. Patient Perceptions of Servicescape in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Healthc. Manag. 2018, 63, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucarotti, P.S.K.; Burke, F.J.T. Factors Influencing Patients’ Continuing Attendance at a given Dentist. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 218, E13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBM. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27; IBM: Chicago, IL, USA, 2021.
- Nitschke, I.; Bleiel, D.; Ludwig, E.; Wefers, K.-P.; Nitschke, S. Die seniorengerechte Praxis. Der Gerostomatologische Wohlfühlfaktor. Z. Seniroenzahnmedizin 2018, 6, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
- O’Toole, J.; Sinclair, M.; Leder, K. Maximising Response Rates in Household Telephone Surveys. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, X.W.; Shafei, M.N.; Abdullah, J.M.; Musa, K.I. Reliability of Telephone Interview for Assessment of Long-Term Stroke Outcomes: Evidence from Interrater Analysis. Neuroepidemiology 2019, 52, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, T.; Gardner, A.; Gardner, G.; Middleton, S.; Della, P. Development and Interrater Reliability Testing of a Telephone Interview Training Programme for Australian Nurse Interviewers. Nurse Educ. Today 2013, 33, 470–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmar, N.; Dong, L.; Eisingerich, A.B. Connecting With Your Dentist on Facebook: Patients’ and Dentists’ Attitudes Towards Social Media Usage in Dentistry. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e10109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Asan, O.; Ye, Z.; Acharya, A. Dental Care Providers & apos; and Patients & apos; Perceptions of the Effect of Health Information Technology in the Dental Care Setting. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2013, 144, 1022–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seymour, B.; Yang, H.; Getman, R.; Barrow, J.; Kalenderian, E. Patient-Centered Communication: Exploring the Dentist’s Role in the Era of e-Patients and Health 2.0. J. Dent. Educ. 2016, 80, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistisches Landesamt Freistaat Sachsen. 7. Regionalisierte Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung für den Freistaat Sachsen 2019 Bis 2035. Landkreisinformation Landkreis Leipzig. Available online: https://www.bevoelkerungsmonitor.sachsen.de/download/RBV%20Kreise/rbv-landkreisinfo_landkreis-leipzig.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2022).
- Statistisches Landesamt Rheinland-Pfalz. Statistisches Jahrbuch. 2020. Available online: https://www.statistik.rlp.de/fileadmin/dokumente/jahrbuch/Jahrbuch_2020_Kapitel_2_-_Bevoelkerung.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2022).
Total | Sex | Age Group | Residence of Living | R2 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All | Female | Male | p | ag 1 | ag 2 | ag 3 | p | Berlin (B) (n/%) | Leipzig (L) (n/%) | Mainz (M) (n/%) | p | ||
35–50 Yrs. | 70–84 Yrs. | 85+ Yrs. | |||||||||||
(n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | ||||||||
How did you become aware of your dentist? | |||||||||||||
n = 424 | n = 251 | n = 173 | 0.060 | n = 143 | n = 149 | n = 132 | 0.587 | n = 134 | n = 135 | n = 155 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni M * B < 0.001 M * L < 0.001 | 0.103 | |
Recommendation | 278/65.6 | 174/69.3 | 104/60.1 | 94/65.7 | 96/64.4 | 88/66.7 | 79/59.0 | 63/46.7 | 136/87.7 | ||||
Internet | 31/7.3 | 14/5.6 | 17/9.8 | 26/18.2 | 4/2.7 | 1/0.8 | 11/8.2 | 18/13.3 | 2/1.3 | ||||
Advertisement | 44/10.4 | 24/9.6 | 20/11.6 | 10/7.0 | 18/12.1 | 16/12.1 | 26/19.4 | 15/11.1 | 3/1.9 | ||||
Referral | 27/6.3 | 14/5.6 | 13/7.5 | 1/0.7 | 16/10.7 | 10/7.6 | 5/3.7 | 18/13.3 | 4/2.6 | ||||
Other reasons | 44/10.4 | 25/10.0 | 19/10.2 | 12/8.4 | 15/10.1 | 17/12.9 | 13/9.7 | 21/15.6 | 10/6.5 | ||||
Based on what criteria has the dentist been selected? | |||||||||||||
n = 420 | n = 250 | n = 170 | 0.932 | n = 142 | n = 147 | n = 131 | 0.649 | n = 133 | n = 135 | n = 152 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * M < 0.001 B * L < 0.001 L * M < 0.001 | 0.316 | |
Recommendation | 238/56.7 | 146/58.4 | 92/54.1 | 74/52.1 | 88/59.9 | 76/58.0 | 70/52.6 | 36/26.7 | 132/86.8 | ||||
Internet | 11/2.6 | 6/2.4 | 5/2.9 | 8/5.6 | 2/1.4 | 1/0.8 | 10/7.5 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | ||||
Advertisement | 25/6.0 | 13/5.2 | 12/7.1 | 6/4.2 | 10/6.8 | 9/6.9 | 22/16.5 | 0/0 | 3/2.0 | ||||
Referral | 7/1.6 | 4/1.6 | 3/1.8 | 0/0 | 3/2.0 | 4/3.1 | 3/2.3 | 0/0 | 4/2.6 | ||||
Other reasons | 139/33.1 | 81/32.4 | 58/34.1 | 54/38.0 | 44/29.9 | 41/31.3 | 28/21.1 | 99/73.3 | 12/7.9 |
Total | Sex | Age Group | Place of Residenc | R2 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All | Female | Male | p | ag 1 | ag 2 | ag 3 | p | Berlin (B) (n/%) | Leipzig (L) (n/%) | Mainz (M) (n/%) | p | ||
35–50 Yrs. | 70–84 Yrs. | 85 + Yrs. | |||||||||||
(n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | ||||||||
How important is it that the dental office is located nearby? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 3/0.7 | 1/0.4 | 2/1.1 | 0.056 | 1/0.7 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 < 0.001 | 3/2.0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * L 0.006 B * M < 0.001 | 0.141 |
unimportant | 35/7.5 | 18/6.5 | 17/9.1 | 20/13.2 | 9/5.8 | 6/3.8 | 18/11.8 | 10/6.7 | 7/4.3 | ||||
partly/partly | 90/19.3 | 48/17.2 | 42/22.5 | 34/22.4 | 33/21.3 | 23/14.5 | 38/25.0 | 35/23.3 | 17/10.4 | ||||
important | 229/49.1 | 137/49.1 | 92/49.2 | 79/52.0 | 78/50.3 | 72/45.3 | 68/44.7 | 63/42.0 | 98/59.8 | ||||
very important | 109/23.4 | 75/26.9 | 34/18.2 | 18/11.8 | 33/21.3 | 58/36.5 | 25/16.4 | 42/28.0 | 42/25.6 | ||||
How important is it that there is proper place to park? | |||||||||||||
n = 465 | n = 278 | n = 187 | 0.798 | n = 150 | n = 155 | n = 160 | ANOVA 0.003 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 0.004 ag 2 * ag 3 0.023 | n = 152 | n = 150 | n = 163 | ANOVA 0.003 Bonferoni B * L 0.003 | 0.108 | |
very unimportant | 8/1.8 | 4/1.4 | 4/2.1 | 2/1.3 | 2/1.3 | 4/2.5 | 1/0.7 | 6/4.0 | 1/0.6 | ||||
unimportant | 67/14.4 | 46/16.5 | 21/11.2 | 11/7.3 | 16/10.3 | 40/25.2 | 13/8.6 | 29/19.3 | 25/15.3 | ||||
partly/partly | 68/14.6 | 36/12.9 | 32/17.1 | 24/15.9 | 27/17.4 | 17/10.7 | 21/13.8 | 31/20.7 | 16/9.8 | ||||
important | 234/50.3 | 131/47.0 | 103/55.1 | 84/55.6 | 79/51.0 | 71/44.7 | 88/57.9 | 53/35.3 | 93/57.1 | ||||
very important | 88/18.9 | 61/21.9 | 27/14.4 | 30/19.9 | 31/20.0 | 27/17.0 | 29/19.1 | 31/20.7 | 28/17.2 | ||||
How important is it that there is an elevator? | |||||||||||||
n = 465 | n = 279 | n = 186 | 0.085 | n = 150 | n = 155 | n = 160 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 2 < 0.001 ag 1 * ag 3 < 0.001 ag 2 * ag 3 0.009 | n = 152 | n = 150 | n = 163 | ANOVA 0.013 Bonferoni B * M 0.004 | 0.248 | |
very unimportant | 23/4.9 | 12/4.3 | 11/5.9 | 16/10.6 | 4/2.6 | 3/1.9 | 9/5.9 | 9/6.0 | 5/3.1 | ||||
unimportant | 119/25.6 | 61/21.9 | 58/31.2 | 68/45.0 | 34/21.9 | 17/10.7 | 45/29.6 | 41/27.3 | 33/20.2 | ||||
partly/partly | 114/24.5 | 68/24.4 | 46/24.7 | 35/23.2 | 36/23.29 | 43/27.0 | 42/27.6 | 42/28.0 | 20/18.4 | ||||
important | 150/32.3 | 100/35.8 | 50/26.9 | 26/17.2 | 64/41.3 | 60/37.7 | 39/25.7 | 33/22.0 | 78/47.9 | ||||
very important | 59/12.7 | 38/13.6 | 21/11.3 | 6/4.0 | 17/11.0 | 36/22.6 | 17/11.2 | 25/16.7 | 17/10.4 | ||||
How important is it that the dental office is accessible to wheelchair users? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 10/2.1 | 5/1.8 | 5/2.7 | 0.435 | 7/4.6 | 3/1.9 | 0/0 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 2 0.006 ag 1 * ag 3 < 0.001 | 5/3.3 | 5/3.3 | 0/0 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * L 0.032 L * M 0.002 | 0.151 |
unimportant | 72/15.5 | 42/15.1 | 30/16.0 | 39/25.7 | 18/11.6 | 15/9.4 | 21/13.8 | 30/20.0 | 21/12.8 | ||||
partly/partly | 134/28.8 | 75/26.9 | 59/31.6 | 38/25.0 | 47/30.3 | 49/30.8 | 38/25.0 | 53/35.3 | 43/26.2 | ||||
important | 213/45.7 | 132/47.3 | 81/43.3 | 58/38.2 | 79/51.0 | 76/47.8 | 73/48.0 | 51/34.0 | 89/54.3 | ||||
very important | 37/7.9 | 25/9.0 | 12/6.4 | 10/6.6 | 8/5.2 | 19/11.9 | 15/9.9 | 11/7.3 | 11/6.7 |
Total | Sex | Age Group | Residence of Living | R2 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All | Female | Male | p | ag 1 | ag 2 | ag 3 | p | Berlin | Leipzig | Mainz | p | ||
35–50 Yrs. | 70–84 Yrs. | 85 + Yrs. | (B) | (L) | (M) | ||||||||
(n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | (n/%) | |||||
How important is it to have a modern waiting room? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 16/3.4 | 9/3.2 | 7/3.7 | 0.299 | 3/2.0 | 2/1.3 | 11/6.9 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 < 0.001 ag 2 * ag 3 < 0.001 | 8/5.3 | 4/2.7 | 4/2.4 | ANOVA 0.005 Bonferoni B * L 0.020 | 0.111 |
unimportant | 154/33.0 | 99/35.5 | 55/29.4 | 36/23.7 | 45/29.0 | 73/45.9 | 40/26.3 | 49/32.7 | 65/39.6 | ||||
partly/partly | 142/30.5 | 83/29.7 | 59/31.6 | 56/36.8 | 44/28.4 | 42/26.4 | 43/28.3 | 71/48.0 | 27/16.5 | ||||
important | 144/30.9 | 84/30.1 | 60/32.1 | 52/34.2 | 60/38.7 | 32/20.1 | 55/36.2 | 24/16.0 | 65/39.6 | ||||
very important | 10/2.2 | 4/1.4 | 6/3.2 | 5/3.3 | 4/2.6 | 1/0.6 | 6/3.9 | 1/0.7 | 3/1.8 | ||||
How important is it to have background music in the waiting room? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 40/8.6 | 19/6.8 | 21/11.2 | 0.830 | 19/12.5 | 8/5.2 | 13/8.2 | 0.317 | 15/9.9 | 12/8.0 | 13/7.9 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * M < 0.001 L * M < 0.001 | 0.094 |
unimportant | 211/45.3 | 134/48.0 | 77/41.2 | 59/38.8 | 71/45.8 | 81/50.9 | 52/34.2 | 54/36.0 | 105/64.0 | ||||
partly/partly | 124/26.6 | 73/26.2 | 51/27.3 | 34/22.4 | 48/31.0 | 42/26.4 | 47/30.9 | 53/35.3 | 24/14.6 | ||||
important | 87/18.7 | 52/18.6 | 35/18.7 | 38/25.0 | 26/16.8 | 23/14.5 | 36/23.7 | 29/19.3 | 22/13.4 | ||||
very important | 4/0.8 | 1/0.4 | 3/1.6 | 2/1.3 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | 2/1.3 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | ||||
How important is it that there is a television program in the waiting room? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 82/17.6 | 50/17.9 | 32/17.1 | 0.389 | 26/17.1 | 21/13.5 | 35/22.0 | ANOVA 0.012 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 0.014 ag 2 * ag 3 0.011 | 49/32.2 | 16/10.7 | 17/10.4 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * L 0.002 L * M 0.006 | 0.104 |
unimportant | 247/53.0 | 151/54.1 | 96/51.3 | 75/49.3 | 80/51.6 | 92/57.9 | 60/39.5 | 67/44.7 | 120/73.2 | ||||
partly/partly | 91/19.5 | 55 8 19.7 | 36/19.3 | 32/21.1 | 38/24.5 | 21/13.2 | 23/15.1 | 54/36.0 | 14/8.5 | ||||
important | 44/9.4 | 23/8.2 | 21/11.2 | 17/11.2 | 16/10.3 | 11/6.9 | 19/12.5 | 12/8.0 | 13/7.9 | ||||
very important | 2/0.5 | 0/0 | 2/1.1 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | ||||
How important is it to have background music in the doctor’s examination room? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 80/17.2 | 47/16.8 | 33/17.6 | 0.526 | 24/15.8 | 18/11.6 | 38/23.9 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 < 0.001 ag 2 * ag 3 0.041 | 52/34.2 | 11/7.3 | 17/10.4 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 L * M < 0.001 | 0.117 |
unimportant | 205/44.0 | 123/44.1 | 82/43.9 | 52/34.2 | 77/49.7 | 76/47.8 | 39/25.7 | 61/40.7 | 105/64.0 | ||||
partly/partly | 112/24.0 | 67/24.0 | 45/24.1 | 41/27.0 | 40/25.8 | 31/19.5 | 48/31.6 | 43/28.7 | 21/12.8 | ||||
important | 64/13.7 | 40/14.3 | 24/12.8 | 31/20.4 | 19/12.3 | 14/8.8 | 12/7.9 | 31/20.7 | 21/12.8 | ||||
very important | 5/1.1 | 2/0.7 | 3/1.6 | 4/2.6 | 1/0.6 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 4/2.7 | 0/0 | ||||
How important is it that there is a television program in the doctor’s examination room | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 118/25.3 | 69/24.7 | 49/26.2 | 0.905 | 39/25.7 | 30/19.4 | 49/30.8 | ANOVA 0.005 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 0.034 ag 2 * ag 3 0.007 | 84/55.3 | 16/10.7 | 18/11.0 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 | 0.234 |
unimportant | 242/51.9 | 146/52.3 | 96/51.3 | 75/49.3 | 81/52.3 | 86/54.1 | 54/35.5 | 75/50.0 | 113/68.9 | ||||
partly/partly | 73/15.7 | 45/16.1 | 28/15.0 | 20/13.2 | 34/21.9 | 19/11.9 | 12/7.9 | 46/30.7 | 15/9.1 | ||||
important | 30/6.4 | 18/6.5 | 12/6.4 | 15/9.9 | 10/6.5 | 5/3.1 | 1/0.7 | 11/7.3 | 18/11.0 | ||||
very important | 3/0,7 | 1/0.4 | 2/1.1 | 3/2.0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | ||||
How important is it that a patient can look at his or her oral situation on a screen? | |||||||||||||
very unimportant | 42/9.0 | 24/8.6 | 18/9.6 | 0.757 | 6/3.9 | 8/5.2 | 28/17.6 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 2 < 0.001 ag 1 * ag 3 < 0.001 ag 2 * ag 3 < 0.001 | 37/24.3 | 5/3.3 | 0/0 | ANOVA < 0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 | 0.256 |
unimportant | 108/23.2 | 69/24.7 | 39/20.9 | 21/13.8 | 37/23.9 | 50/31.4 | 37/24.3 | 26/17.3 | 45/27.4 | ||||
partly/partly | 155/33.3 | 95/34.1 | 60/32.1 | 37/24.3 | 64/41.3 | 54/34.0 | 45/29.6 | 64/42.7 | 46/28.0 | ||||
important | 143/30.7 | 82/29.4 | 61/32.6 | 73/48.0 | 45/29.0 | 25/15.7 | 27/17.8 | 49/32.7 | 67/40.9 | ||||
very important | 18/3.8 | 9/3.2 | 9/4.8 | 15/9.9 | 1/0.6 | 2/1.3 | 6/3.9 | 6/4.0 | 6/3.7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nitschke, I.; von Chlingensperg, R.; Schrock, A.; Hopfenmüller, W.; Jockusch, J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part I: Awareness and Selection Criteria, Infrastructure, and Dental Office Equipment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148307
Nitschke I, von Chlingensperg R, Schrock A, Hopfenmüller W, Jockusch J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part I: Awareness and Selection Criteria, Infrastructure, and Dental Office Equipment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148307
Chicago/Turabian StyleNitschke, Ina, Richard von Chlingensperg, Annett Schrock, Werner Hopfenmüller, and Julia Jockusch. 2022. "What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part I: Awareness and Selection Criteria, Infrastructure, and Dental Office Equipment" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148307