The Burdens in Prosthetic Dentistry Questionnaire (BiPD-Q): Development and Validation of a Patient-Based Measure for Process-Related Quality of Care in Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

Development and validation of the Burdens in Oral Surgery Questionnaire (BiOS‐Q)

“…Test–retest reliability was excellent according to the guidelines as the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ICC was >0·75 . Cronbach's alpha as a measure of internal consistency of the BiOS‐Q was 0·84, supporting the assumption of a single construct, and was comparable with other measures for the assessment of process‐related patients’ perceptions in other medical settings or clinical conditions such as the Burdens in Prosthetic Dentistry Questionnaire (BiPD‐Q; 0·87) , the Cancer Care Coordination Questionnaire (CCC‐Q; 0·88) , the Consultation And Relational Empathy Questionnaire (CARE; 0·93) , the European Version of the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale (VSSS‐EU; 0·96) and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ; 0·93) . The small differences in measures of internal consistency are not surprising as, for example, the VSSS‐EU is obviously much longer than the BiOS‐Q (54 versus 16 items), and we assume the concept assessed by the CARE is more definite than the construct of patient‐based process‐related quality of care.…”

“…We assessed convergent validity by computing correlations of the BiOS‐Q means with dentist's burdens and patients’ satisfaction with the complete treatment, which were considered external criteria for the construct to be measured. Both correlation coefficients were of a considerable magnitude ( r = 0·39 and r = 0·44) according to the guidelines and higher than the corresponding coefficients of the BiPD‐Q ( r = 0·26 and r = 0·31) . Larsen et al .…”

“…Most of them focus on a specific medical discipline or condition, for example community‐based psychiatric services , inpatient treatments within a psychosomatic clinic , inpatient urologic rehabilitation , cancer care coordination ; others assess patients’ satisfaction with provided health care or empathy in general . There is also a recently developed instrument in dentistry for the assessment of patients’ perceptions during prosthodontic treatment . However, none of the available instruments seems to be appropriate to assess patients’ perceptions within oral surgery.…”

A systematic review of quality measures used in primary care dentistry

“…Using valid and reliable tools to measure quality is vital in order to support day-to-day quality assessment and improvement of dental care. The 11 measure sets from the peer-reviewed literature [22][23][24]26,27,29,30,31,32,33,38 and three measure sets from the grey literature 50,56,57 represent measures available to researchers to assess dimensions of quality in relation to primary care dentistry. The majority of these measures showed acceptable levels of internal validity; however, their usefulness in delivering a clear picture of quality and to support quality improvement is unclear.…”

Conceptualising a framework for improving quality in primary dental care

“…When considering patient experience throughout the patient journey it may be a measurable facet of each domain, for example, satisfaction with the environment where care is delivered (structure) or with communication with the dental team or amount of discomfort associated with the procedure (processes). 22,23 It may have been the intention of the NQMC to highlight the importance of ensuring patient access and patient experience in quality of care; however, they do not sufficiently add to Donabedian's domains of quality to warrant their specific inclusion to a conceptual framework of quality in dentistry.…”