Factors Influencing Parental Acceptance of Paediatric Dental General Anaesthesia: A Systematic Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The current review focuses on the factors influencing parental acceptance and the dentists’ role in facilitating dental treatment acceptance under general anaesthesia (GA). Materials and methods: The search was conducted on several databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar search engine, and Cochrane Library on articles published from June 1993 to June 2023. A mixed research method was adopted for the current review, which implies that studies with both qualitative and quantitative methodologies were included. Results: The findings revealed several factors influencing parental acceptance towards dental treatment under GA. One of these factors was parental beliefs and attitudes that have been linked to a higher possibility of acceptance. Moreover, the income and education levels of parents revealed that parents with a higher education level were more likely to accept the adoption of GA for their children’s dental treatment. Dentists’ roles in promoting parental acceptance towards dental treatment under GA is important in ensuring that the parent received accurate information concerning the dental treatment procedure, its benefits, and related risks. Providing parents with this information will help them make well-informed decisions on the treatment procedure. Conclusion: Dentists should include parents in the decision-making process, explain key details concerning the treatment procedure and allow them to contribute to selecting the best dental treatment option for their children.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Desai S, Shah P, Jajoo S, Smita P. Assessment of parental attitude toward different behaviour management techniques used in paediatric dentistry. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2019;37(4):350–359. doi: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_138_18.
Seangpadsa K, Smutkeeree A, Leelataweewud P. Parental acceptance of behaviour management techniques for preschool children in dental practice: Revisited. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2020;38(3):274–279. doi: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_349_20.
Baakdah RA, Turkistani JM, Al-Qarni AM, Al-Abdali AN, Alharbi HA, Bafaqih JA, et al. Paediatric dental treatments with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions: a cross‐sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):186–195. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01555-7.
Schroë SCH, Bonifacio CC, Bruers JJ, Innes NPT, Hesse D. General and paediatric dentists’ knowledge, attitude and practises regarding the use of Silver Diamine Fluoride for the management of dental caries: a national survey in the Netherlands. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):458–467. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02475-w.
Öztürk G, Gümüş H. Evaluation of oral health-related quality of life following dental rehabilitation under general anaesthesia in Turkish children with early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2023. doi: 10.1111/ipd.13096.
Al-Batayneh OB, Al-Khateeb HO, Ibrahim WM, Khader YS. Parental knowledge and acceptance of different treatment options for primary teeth provided by dental practitioners. Front Public Health. 2019;7. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00322.
Gou C, Wang Y, Yang R, Huang R, Zhang Q, Zou J. Oral health-related quality of life and parental anxiety in Chinese children undergoing dental general anaesthesia: a prospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1). doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01994-2.
Chali MT, Eshete SK, Debela KL. Learning how research design methods work: a review of Creswell’s research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Qual Rep. 2022;27(12):2956–2960. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5901.
Weyant E. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th Edition. J Electron Resour Medical Libr. 2022;19(1–2):54–55. doi: 10.1080/15424065.2022.2046231.
Ishtiaq M. Book Review Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. English Lang Teach. 2019;12(5):40. doi: 10.5539/elt.v12n5p40.
Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):78–93. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7.
Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: A scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):263–267. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8.
Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019:93–112. doi: 10.1177/0739456X17723971.
Schiavenato M, Chu F. PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021:103194. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et. al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10;89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4.
Ryan C, Hesselgreaves H, Wu O, Paul J, Dixon-Hughes J, Moss JG. Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti-cancer treatment. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):61–67. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0721-x.
Büchter RB, Weise A, Pieper D. Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01143-3.
Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2–10. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141.
Clarke V, Braun V. Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Couns Psychother Res. 2018;18(2):107–110. doi: 10.1002/capr.12165.
Long HA, French DP, Brooks JM. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2020;1(1):31–42. doi: 10.1177/2632084320947559.
Bruno W, Haar RJ. A systematic literature review of the ethics of conducting research in the humanitarian setting. Confl Health. 2020:27. doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-00282-0.
Suri H. Ethical considerations of conducting systematic reviews in educational research. In: Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, Buntins K (eds.) In: Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K. (eds). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2020:41–54. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_3.
Newman M, Gough D. Systematic reviews in educational research: methodology, perspectives and application. In: Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, Buntins K (eds.) Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2020:3–22. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1.
Margulis A V., Pladevall M, Riera-guardia N, Varas-lorenzo C, Hazell L, Berkman ND, et al. Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, Comparison of two tools: The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the RTI item bank. Clin Epid. 2014;6:981–993. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S66677.
Thomson WM, Foster Page LA, Malden PE, Gaynor WN, Nordin N. Comparison of the ECOHIS and short-form P-CPQ and FIS scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1). doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-36.
de Souza MC, Harrison M, Marshman Z. Oral health-related quality of life following dental treatment under general anaesthesia for early childhood caries – a UK-based study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(1):30–36. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12221.
Lin YT, Kalhan AC, Lin YTJ, Kalhan TA, Chou CC, Gao XL, et. al. Risk assessment models to predict caries recurrence after oral rehabilitation under general anaesthesia: a pilot study. Int Dent J. 2018;68(6):378–385. doi: 10.1111/idj.12396.
Hosey MT, Donaldson AN, Huntington C, Liossi C, Reynolds PA, Alharatani R, et al. Improving access to preparatory information for children undergoing general anaesthesia for tooth extraction and their families: Study protocol for a Phase III randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15(1). doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-219.
Amin MS, Harrison RL, Weinstein P. A qualitative look at parents’ experience of their child’s dental general anaesthesia. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16(5):309–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00750.x.
Alfarraj J, Alsaad S, Alturki R, Alshehri FS, Parameaswari PJ. Parents’ perceptions and concerns regarding paediatric dental care under general anaesthesia in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia): a cross-sectional study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023;47(1):27–35. doi: 10.22514/jocpd.2022.030.
Al Zoubi L, Schmoeckel J, Mustafa Ali M, Splieth C. Parental acceptance of advanced behaviour management techniques in paediatric dentistry in families with different cultural background. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021;22(4):707–713. doi: 10.1007/s40368-021-00607-4.
American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Behaviour Guidance for the Paediatric Dental Patient: The Reference Manual of Paediatric Dentistry. Chicago, III. American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. 2023;359-377. Available at: https://www.aapd.org/globalassets/media/policies_guidelines/bp_behavguide.pdf.
Bagher SM, Sabbagh HJ, Nadhreen A, Alamoudi NM, Almushayt A, Al-Malik M, Al Shehri MR, Elkhodary HM. Preference for comprehensive dental treatment under general anaesthesia among parents with previous experience: A cross-sectional study. Children. 2023;10(11):1776. doi: 10.3390/children10111776
Ibrahim NA, Nor NAM, Azizi NZ, Hamzah TNNT, Dziaruddin N, Musa S. Retrospective analysis of dental treatment under general anaesthesia among children with early childhood caries in Malaysia. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2023 Jul;47(4):46-53. doi: 10.22514/jocpd.2023.034.
Lola Adewale. Anaesthesia for paediatric dentistry: Continuing Education. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2012;12(6);288–294. doi: 10.1093/bjaceaccp/mks045.
Sharmin N, Pandya J, Stevenson TR, Chow AK. Interactive learning content to supplement didactic lectures in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2023;1-5. doi: 10.1002/jdd.13391.