Informed consent challenges and strategies: A qualitative study of the orthodontists’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the barriers and strategies perceived by orthodontists when obtaining consent from their adult patients concerning patients' comprehension or recollection of treatment information. SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: The sample comprised 12 orthodontists working in 8 different cities in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: An exploratory investigation using qualitative inquiry was conducted. Participants were recruited through a combination of purposive, maximum variation and snowball sampling. Data were collected through audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews until saturation was reached. Then, data were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality and credibility were achieved by employing member checks, memo writing and analyst triangulation strategies. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified, with subthemes: (1) Challenges that may interfere with patients' comprehension and recollection of treatment information (i. patients' internal barriers, ii. patients' external barriers and iii. financial barriers); and (2) strategies to optimize information delivery and communication (i. tailoring the content to be delivered, ii. communication fashion, iii. communication timing and iv. being accommodative). CONCLUSION: The participants reported barriers that may be overlooked in the daily routine of orthodontic practices. Information is provided that may guide orthodontists to overcome or minimize these challenges, increase patient comprehension and improve the quality of informed consent processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".