4.5 Article

Systematic cognitive behavioral approach for oral hygiene instruction: A short-term study

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 191-196

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.014

关键词

Self-efficacy; Patient education; Six-step method; Behavioral change; Oral hygiene instruction; Periodontitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Determine whether a six-step behavioral cognitive method is more effective than traditional oral hygiene instruction. Methods: Thirty-eight patients with chronic periodontitis were randomly assigned to two groups. The control group was given traditional oral hygiene instruction for 20 min. The intervention group received counseling by Farquhar's six-step method for 10 min after traditional oral hygiene instruction. In both groups, oral hygiene instruction was given once a week, and performed three times in total for 3 weeks. Clinical characteristics, deposition of dental plaque, frequency and duration of brushing, frequency of interdental cleaning and scores based on scale of self-efficacy for brushing of the teeth were compared in both groups. Results: There were no differences between the two groups in clinical, demographic, behavioral and self-efficacy characteristics at the baseline examination. However after the third visit, the intervention group had a significantly higher self-efficacy, lower plaque index, longer brushing duration and higher frequency of inter-dental cleaning than those of the control group. Multiple regression analysis showed significant association of toothbrushing duration with self-efficacy for brushing of the teeth (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The six-step method might be more effective for enhancing self-efficacy and behavioral change of oral hygiene than traditional oral hygiene instruction alone. Practice implications: Dentists and dental hygienists Call use the six-step method for effective oral hygiene instruction. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据