| Title |
Reasons for low adherence to diet-diaries issued to pediatric dental patients: a collective case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s164944 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arheiam Arheiam, Sondos Albadri, Louise Laverty, Rebecca Harris |
| Abstract |
Dietary habits are an important etiological factor in the development of dental caries. Several tools, such as 24-h dietary recall (retrospective) and diet-diaries (prospective), have been recommended for dietary assessment in dental practice. Diet-diaries are commonly advocated as a tool for oral health education; however, low adherence is found to be a recognized downside of their use in dental settings, as well as nutritional research more widely. However, the reasons for poor adherence to diet-diaries remain unclear. This study aimed to explore the reasons for poor adherence to diet-diaries issued to children in a dental hospital setting. A qualitative collective case study design was employed to explore the use of diet-diaries as a health education tool. Twenty-eight data sources across 11 appointments included: observation of dentist-patient interactions, semi-structured interviews with child-parent dyads and dentists, in addition to documentary analysis of returned diet-diaries (this included 11 observations of dentist-patient interactions, 14 interviews with the child/parent dyads and dentists, and documentary analysis of three completed diet-diaries). Data from these multiple sources were integrated in a thematic analysis to identify themes and sub-themes. Two overarching themes were identified: 1) the diet-diary is perceived as a test which carries a potential for embarrassment and blame, which in turn generates defensive behavior from parents; and 2) parents' values, priorities, and circumstances affect the level of commitment to completing a diet-diary. Low adherence to diet-diary completion in clinical dentistry results from interacting factors related to the diet-diary itself, the patient, and the clinician. This study identifies a need for a more appropriate tool for dietary assessment that is patient-centered and compatible with modern lifestyles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 63% |
| Libya | 1 | 13% |
| India | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2021.
All research outputs
#4,244,025
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#260
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,078
of 342,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.