MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-over study incorporated 90 special needs children who were recruited to receive dental treatment with two ways of behavior guidance exposures consecutively in the order of A-B/B-A design. Exposure A is CBBGT (distraction, tell-show-do, and positive reinforcement), while Exposure B is PB. The dental procedures were either dental prophylaxis or restoration with a handpiece. Caregivers need to answer a paper-based questionnaire before and after exposure. The Wilcoxon sign rank test and logistic regression were utilized in order to establish the comparability, impacts, and association.
RESULT: About 88 caregivers of special needs children aged between 2 and 15 years completed the sequence. Overall, 98.9% of the children presented with neurodevelopmental disorders. Twenty-seven caregivers were significantly concerned when the combination of basic BGT was applied to their children, and 14 caregivers felt the same for PB. However, the Wilcoxon sign rank test revealed insignificant caregiver scores on acceptance and consent for both methods but significantly improved attitudes towards the use of PB after observing the placement of their children.
CONCLUSION: The studied caregiver demonstrated equivalent acceptance, consent, and concern toward the use of PB and a combination of basic BGT with improved attitudes after comprehensive explanation and real-time observation of PB usage during their children's dental treatment.
DESIGN: Systematic review and regression analysis.
ELIGIBILITY: Medication adherence levels studied at primary, secondary and tertiary care settings. Self-reported measures with scoring methods were included. Studies without proxy measures were excluded.
DATA SOURCES: Using detailed searches with key concepts including questionnaires, reliability and validity, and restricted to English, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Library were searched until 01 March 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA-2020) checklist was used.
DATA ANALYSIS: Risk of bias was assessed via COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN-2018) guidelines. Narrative synthesis aided by graphical figures and statistical analyses.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Process domains [behaviour (e.g., self-efficacy), barrier (e.g., impaired dexterity) or belief (e.g., perception)], and overall outcome domains of either intentional (I), unintentional (UI), or mixed non-adherence.
RESULTS: Paper summarises evidence from 59 studies of PROMs, validated among patients aged 18-88 years in America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, and Australasia. PROMs detected outcome domains: intentional non-adherence, n=44 (I=491 criterion items), mixed intentionality, n=13 (I=79/UI=50), and unintentional, n=2 (UI=5). Process domains detected include belief (383 criterion items), barrier (192) and behaviour (165). Criterion validity assessment used proxy measures (biomarkers, e-monitors), and scoring was ordinal, dichotomised, or used Visual Analogue Scale. Heterogeneity was revealed across psychometric properties (consistency, construct, reliability, discrimination ability). Intentionality correlated positively with negative beliefs (r(57)=0.88) and barriers (r(57)=0.59). For every belief or barrier criterion-item, PROMs' aptitude to detect intentional non-adherence increased by β=0.79 and β=0.34 units, respectively (R2=0.94). Primary care versus specialised care predicted intentional non-adherence (OR 1.9; CI 1.01 to 2.66).
CONCLUSIONS: Ten PROMs had adequate psychometric properties. Of the ten, eight PROMs were able to detect total, and two PROMs were able to detect partial intentionality to medication default. Fortification of patients' knowledge and illness perception, as opposed to daily reminders alone, is most imperative at primary care levels.