What is preventing dentists from providing person-centred care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most healthcare professions have shifted the way they teach clinical approaches from a biomedical to a person-centred perspective. Yet, dentistry remains strongly anchored in a biomedical world.The objective of this project was to understand the barriers practicing dentists face to provide what we consider person-centred care. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study that comprised semi-structured interviews with dentists in private practice in the Greater Montreal area. After the analysis, we identified six barriers:• Fear of interpersonal conflict: participants thought that engaging in genuine conversations with patients would lead to situations of disagreement and even conflicts.• Fear of litigation: dentists considered that the legal and licensing infrastructure would judge the treatment they provide through a strict biomedical framework.• Fear of loss of money: participants thought that providing person-centred care was more time consuming and thus financially penalizing. • Pleasure to excel technically: some dentists did not consider offering interventions that provided less procedural pleasure than technical ones.• Narrow interpretation of health: participants considered the biomedical dimension as the only important dimension.• Lack of information: participants knew nothing or very little about person or patient-centred care. They seemed willing to integrate it into their practice had they had known more about it.These findings should help academic institutions to design their programs on person-centred care and respond to the fears expressed by professionals.Also, legal infrastructures must recognize the paradigm shift from the biomedical to the person-centred.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".