Parent perspectives on effective patient-provider communication during orthodontic consultations: a qualitative description study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To describe parent perspectives on effective patient-provider communication (PPC) during orthodontic consultations for their children. Materials and Methods: Qualitative description guided the study design. Parents of children who recently underwent an orthodontic consultation and were fluent in English were purposefully selected. Interviews continued until data saturation was achieved. Data were analyzed using inductive, manifest thematic analysis. Results: Fifteen parents, including 10 females and five males, participated. Four themes were inductively developed. Parents attributed several characteristics to effective PPC, including inclusivity, clarity, honesty, and comprehensiveness's. Specifically, they emphasized the importance of involving children and staff members in the consultation process, delivering honest and justifiable diagnoses and treatment plans, and adopting a holistic approach that considered all phases of the therapeutic process and various dimensions such as tasks, finances, and relationships between patients and care providers. Conclusions: The findings underscore the significance of care provider-related factors in PPC. These findings also emphasize the need for a collaborative and inclusive approach between orthodontic patients and care providers to foster effective PPC. Subsequent researchers should delve into the perspectives of pediatric patients, particularly adolescents, and care providers regarding effective PPC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".