Premium
Perceptions of behavioural guidance techniques for paediatric patients amongst students in a Malaysian dental school
Author(s) -
Ali Nurhanna Mohd,
Husin Intan Nadia,
Ahmad Mas Suryalis,
Hamzah Siti Hajar
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
european journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.583
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1600-0579
pISSN - 1396-5883
DOI - 10.1111/eje.12573
Subject(s) - distraction , psychological intervention , psychology , test (biology) , medical education , medicine , clinical psychology , applied psychology , psychiatry , neuroscience , paleontology , biology
Objectives Behavioural guidance (BG) training is an important component of preparing future dentists to manage paediatric patients, who often exhibit cooperation issues during treatment. This study investigated the acceptance of various BG techniques amongst dental students in a Malaysian institution. Methodology A paper‐based survey was conducted, classroom‐style, on all dental students (Year 1 to Year 5, n = 336, response rate = 84.5%) using a validated questionnaire, developed from previous literature. For each BG technique, students used a visual analogue scale to mark their acceptability score; this figure was later categorised into different acceptance levels. Students’ mean acceptability scores and acceptance of each BG technique were consecutively analysed via independent t test and chi‐square test (significance level, P < 0.01) using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software. Results Across the academic year, most students cited acceptance of reinforcement techniques (eg positive reinforcement, encouraging child “not to be a coward”, promising a toy) and desensitisation methods (eg tell‐show‐do, music/video distraction, stimulating the child's imagination, using euphemism), but not for aversive interventions (eg hand over mouth, using Papoose Board, active immobilisation) and showing needles ( P > 0.01). Percentages of those who accepted communicative techniques involving parents demonstrated significant differences across subjects of different academic years, between pre‐clinical and clinical groups of respondents and amongst clinical students. Other techniques with such significant differences, along with low acceptance, included modelling, voice control and disallowing the child to speak. Conclusion The findings of this study provide useful information for curricular enhancement aimed at equipping dental students with the ability to apply appropriate and effective BG techniques during patient care.