BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the scope of dental hygiene practice was expanded in 2006. The objective of this study was to explore reasons among dentists and dental hygienists for supporting or opposing an extended scope of practice and to find explanatory factors.METHODS: A questionnaire containing pre-defined reasons and an open-ended question was distributed among 1,674 randomly selected members of two Dutch professional associations (874 dentists, 800 dental hygienists). Data were analyzed with binary logistic regression with Bayesian information criterion (BIC) model selection.RESULTS: Response were obtained from 541 practitioners (32.3%): i.e., 233 dentists (43.1%) and 308 dental hygienists (56.9%). Non-response analysis revealed no differences, and representativeness analysis showed similarities between samples and target populations. Most often, dentists reported flexible collaboration (50.2%) and dental hygienists indicated task variation (71.1%) as supportive reasons. As opposing reasons, dentists generally reported quality of care (41.2%) and dental hygienists' self-competence (22.7%). Reasons were explained by profession, gender, and new-style practitioners.CONCLUSION: Dentists and dental hygienists conveyed different reasons for supporting or opposing an extended scope of dental hygiene practice. Outcomes can be categorized as reasons related to economic, professional status, quality, job satisfaction, and flexible collaboration and are not only explained by profession.
AIMS: Attitudes of dentists and dental hygienists towards extended scope and independent dental hygiene practice are described in several studies, but the results are heterogenous. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the attitudes of dentists and dental hygienists towards extended scope and independent dental hygiene practice.METHODS: PubMed, AMED and CINAHL were screened by two independent assessors to identify relevant studies. Only quantitative studies that reported the percentages of dentists' and dental hygienists' attitude towards extended scope and independent dental hygiene practice were included. The random-effects model was used to synthesise possible heterogenous influences.RESULTS: Meta proportions with regard to a positive attitude towards extended scope of practice are 0.54 for dentists and 0.81 for dental hygienists. Meta proportions of a positive attitude towards independent practice are 0.14 for dentists and 0.59 for dental hygienists. A meta analysis with regard to negative attitudes could only be performed on extended scope of practice and did not reveal a difference between the two professions. We obtained homogeneous outcomes of the studies included regarding negative attitudes of dentists . A minority of dentists hold negative attitudes towards extended scope of dental hygiene practice. Study outcomes regarding negative attitudes of dental hygienists were heterogeneous.CONCLUSIONS: Positive attitudes are present among a majority of dentists and dental hygienists with regard to extended scope of dental hygiene practice, while for independent dental hygiene practice this holds for a minority of dentists and a majority of dental hygienists.
Background: Rising healthcare costs, an increasing general practitioner shortage and an aging population have made healthcare organization transformation a priority. To meet these challenges, traditional roles of non-medical members have been reconsidered. Within the domain of physiotherapy, there has been significant interest in Extended Scope Physiotherapy (ESP). Although studies have focused on the perceptions of different stakeholders in relation to ESP, there is a large variety in the interpretation of ESP. Aim: To identify a paradigm of ESP incorporating goals, roles and tasks, to provide a consistent approach for the implementation of ESP in primary care. Methods: An exploratory, qualitative multi-step design was used containing a scoping review, focus groups and semi-structured interviews. The study population consisted of patients, physiotherapists, general practitioners and indirect stakeholders such as lecturers, health insurers and policymakers related to primary care physiotherapy. The main topics discussed in the focus groups and semi-structured interviews were the goals, skills and roles affiliated with ESP. The ‘framework’ method, developed by Ritchie & Spencer, was used as analytical approach to refine the framework. Results: Two focus groups and twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore stakeholder perspectives on ESP in Dutch primary care. A total of 11 physiotherapists, six general practitioners, five patients and four indirect stakeholders participated in the study. There was a lot of support for ‘decreasing healthcare costs’, ‘tackling increased health demand’ and ‘improving healthcare effectiveness’ as main goals of ESP. The most agreement was reached on ‘triaging’, ‘referring to specialists’ and ‘ordering diagnostic imaging’ as tasks fitting for ESP. Most stakeholders also supported ‘working in a multidisciplinary team’, ‘working as a consultant’ and ‘an ESP role separated from a physiotherapist role’ as roles of ESP. Conclusions: Based on the scoping review, focus groups and interviews with direct and indirect stakeholders, it appears that there is sufficient support for ESP in the Netherlands. This study provides a clear presentation of how ESP can be conceptualized in primary care. A pilot focused on determining the feasibility of ESP in Dutch primary care will be the next step.
