Field-testing a psychosocial assessment scoring form for TMD patients - summarizing axis II instruments.
Behavioral sciences
Craniomandibular disorders
Depression
Psychological
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2020
01 10 2020
Historique:
received:
10
04
2020
accepted:
07
09
2020
entrez:
1
10
2020
pubmed:
2
10
2020
medline:
30
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The etiology of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) can be explained on the basis of a biopsychosocial model. However, psychosocial assessment is challenging in daily dental practice. The purpose of the current study was to field-test the practicability of a novel psychosocial assessment scoring form regarding the reliability of scoring procedures and the opinion of examiners. The working hypotheses were that the scoring results of inexperienced undergraduate students were similar to the results collected by a gold standard and that the scoring form was easy to use. A psychosocial assessment scoring form was developed in accordance with guidelines of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), including results of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ), and Generalized Anxiety Disorders (GAD). Inexperienced operators (undergraduate students) examined patients with TMD-associated complaints and rated the practicability of the scoring form. The scoring results were recalculated by two experienced operators and a consensus was defined as a gold standard. Reliability coefficients were determined comparing results of the gold standard and the inexperienced operators. Sixty-five examiners used the scoring form to obtain results for patients with TMD-associated complaints. Of the patients, 78.8% received a diagnosis according to DC/TMD decision trees. Two-thirds of the operators (62.9%) stated that the form was easy to complete, and 83.0% would use it in their dental practice. The reliability coefficients ranged between 0.81-1.00. Within the limitations of the present study, the psychosocial assessment scoring form seems to be an easy-to-use and practicable tool. The vast majority of the inexperienced examiners recommended the application.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The etiology of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) can be explained on the basis of a biopsychosocial model. However, psychosocial assessment is challenging in daily dental practice. The purpose of the current study was to field-test the practicability of a novel psychosocial assessment scoring form regarding the reliability of scoring procedures and the opinion of examiners. The working hypotheses were that the scoring results of inexperienced undergraduate students were similar to the results collected by a gold standard and that the scoring form was easy to use.
METHODS
A psychosocial assessment scoring form was developed in accordance with guidelines of the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD), including results of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS), Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ), and Generalized Anxiety Disorders (GAD). Inexperienced operators (undergraduate students) examined patients with TMD-associated complaints and rated the practicability of the scoring form. The scoring results were recalculated by two experienced operators and a consensus was defined as a gold standard. Reliability coefficients were determined comparing results of the gold standard and the inexperienced operators.
RESULTS
Sixty-five examiners used the scoring form to obtain results for patients with TMD-associated complaints. Of the patients, 78.8% received a diagnosis according to DC/TMD decision trees. Two-thirds of the operators (62.9%) stated that the form was easy to complete, and 83.0% would use it in their dental practice. The reliability coefficients ranged between 0.81-1.00.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the present study, the psychosocial assessment scoring form seems to be an easy-to-use and practicable tool. The vast majority of the inexperienced examiners recommended the application.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32998738
doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01248-7
pii: 10.1186/s12903-020-01248-7
pmc: PMC7528229
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
267Références
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
J Orofac Pain. 2006 Fall;20(4):306-16
pubmed: 17190029
Acta Odontol Scand. 2019 Mar;77(2):119-125
pubmed: 30264631
J Affect Disord. 2016 Oct;203:382-395
pubmed: 27371907
Psychol Med. 2020 Jan;50(2):324-333
pubmed: 30729902
Psychosom Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;64(2):258-66
pubmed: 11914441
Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8(3):291-305
pubmed: 9260045
J Dent Educ. 2018 Oct;82(10):1065-1076
pubmed: 30275141
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Mar 6;146(5):317-25
pubmed: 17339617
J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2014 Winter;28(1):6-27
pubmed: 24482784
Psychosomatics. 2009 Nov-Dec;50(6):613-21
pubmed: 19996233
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Jul;91(7):703-711
pubmed: 32354771
J Oral Rehabil. 2018 Nov;45(11):881-889
pubmed: 29972707
Acta Odontol Scand. 2012 Jul;70(4):331-6
pubmed: 22300221
Pain Pract. 2020 Feb;20(2):211-225
pubmed: 31610090
Eur J Pain. 2020 Jan;24(1):145-158
pubmed: 31421009
J Pain. 2013 Dec;14(12 Suppl):T75-90
pubmed: 24275225
J Orofac Pain. 2008 Summer;22(3):219-30
pubmed: 18780535
J Dent. 2010 May;38(5):369-76
pubmed: 20079799
J Affect Disord. 2004 Feb;78(2):131-40
pubmed: 14706723
J Pain. 2013 Dec;14(12 Suppl):T102-15
pubmed: 24275218
J Oral Rehabil. 2020 Jan;47(1):87-100
pubmed: 31398261
J Oral Rehabil. 2020 May;47(5):651-658
pubmed: 32080883
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92
pubmed: 14583691
Pain. 1992 Aug;50(2):133-49
pubmed: 1408309
J Orofac Pain. 2002;16(3):207-20
pubmed: 12221737
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017 Jun;24(3_suppl):108-115
pubmed: 28618908
Eur J Pain. 2005 Dec;9(6):613-33
pubmed: 15978854