↓ Skip to main content

Training of Dental Professionals in Motivational Interviewing can Heighten Interdental Cleaning Self-Efficacy in Periodontal Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Training of Dental Professionals in Motivational Interviewing can Heighten Interdental Cleaning Self-Efficacy in Periodontal Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00254
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan P. Woelber, Narin Spann-Aloge, Gilgamesh Hanna, Goetz Fabry, Katrin Frick, Rigo Brueck, Andreas Jähne, Kirstin Vach, Petra Ratka-Krüger

Abstract

The success of periodontal therapy depends on the adherence of patients to professional recommendations. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of a workshop in motivational interviewing (MI) on non-surgical periodontal treatment performed by dental students. In the experimental group patients with periodontitis were treated by students trained in MI, while in the control group patients were treated by students who had not been trained in MI. Clinical oral parameters were assessed by a blinded periodontist in addition to the evaluation of psychological questionnaires given before and after the non-surgical periodontal treatment (6 months). Conversations between patients and students were recorded and rated with the Motivational Treatment Integrity Code (MITI-d) by a blinded psychologist. There were 73 patients in the MI group and 99 patients in the control group. The MI group showed significantly higher scores in the MITI-d analysis. Regression analysis showed that there were no significant differences between groups with regard to plaque level, gingival bleeding, pocket depth reduction or bleeding upon probing. However, patients in the MI-group showed significantly higher interdental cleaning self-efficacy than patients in the control group (MI = 19.57 ± 4.7; control = 17.38 ± 6.01; p = 0.016). Teaching MI to dental students resulted in a significant improvement in the self-efficacy of interdental cleaning in patients compared to a control group of non-trained students, but no improvement in other aspects of non-surgical periodontal therapy. The study also showed that an 8-h workshop with supervision significantly improved the MI-compliant conversations of dental students without requiring more conversation time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 49%
Psychology 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 14 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,766,674
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,917
of 29,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,384
of 298,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#277
of 478 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 478 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.