The influence of the changing external environment and demographics on orthodontic practices (used on final report form)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: To evaluate the factors that influence potential orthodontic patients’ choice between an orthodontist, general dentist (GPs), and direct-to-consumer (DTC) providers for their treatment. To evaluate orthodontists’ perceived impact from GPs and DTC providers providing orthodontic treatment and determine the adaptive changes they have made to the administration of their practices in the past ten years. Methods: An electronic survey was administered to 330 individuals among the general population of adults in Canada. Questions were designed to determine the participants’ demographic background, choice of orthodontic treatment provider, preferred mode of treatment, orthodontic issues they wished to address, and motivation for treatment. An electronic survey was also administered to 270 orthodontists in Canada and the United States. Questions were designed to determine the orthodontists’ demographic background, practice profile, perceived impact from non-specialist orthodontic providers, and recent changes to the administration of their practices. For both surveys, Pearson’s chi-squared tests were used to evaluate the factors influencing participants. Results: When laypersons were asked their preference in provider type, 49.4% of participants selected an orthodontist, 19.2% would follow the recommendation of their general dentist, 18.9% selected a general dentist, and 12.5% selected DTC providers. When asked their preference in mode of orthodontic treatment, 45.4% selected clear braces, 34.1% selected clear aligners, 14.3% selected metal braces, and 6.1% indicated they currently have no interest in orthodontic treatment. When orthodontists were asked if they perceived an impact from GPs providing orthodontic care, 67.7% indicated yes, 19.3% indicated no, and 13.0% were unsure. When orthodontists were asked if they perceived an impact from DTC providers offering orthodontic care, 40.1% indicated yes, 33.1% indicated no, and 26.8% were unsure. When orthodontists were asked if they have perceived a reduction in the number of referrals received from GPS in the past ten year 61.1% indicated yes, 23.3% indicated no, and 15.6% were unsure. When orthodontists were asked if they feel the need to make their practice more competitive 74.0% indicated yes, and 26.0% indicated no. Conclusions: Adults in Canada have a high preference for orthodontic treatment to be performed by orthodontists, and a subsequent lesser extent for GPs and DTC providers. Younger respondents were more likely to prefer metal braces, while older respondents were more likely to prefer clear braces. Preference for clear aligners is positively correlated to a larger community size. The perceived impact of GPs providing orthodontic care was greater than that of DTC providers. American orthodontists were significantly more likely than Canadian orthodontists to perceive an impact on their practice from DTC providers. Orthodontists have experienced a reduction in referrals from GPS and an increase in referred case difficulty. Orthodontists in Canada and those who are female have made significant changes to the administration of their practices in the last ten years.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».