What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part II: Personal Characteristics and Soft Skills
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Important Aspects of an “Ideal Dentist”
3.2. Importance of Human Interactions as Criteria for the Choice of a Dentist
3.3. Characteristics of an “Ideal Dentist”
4. Discussion
4.1. Study Limitations
4.2. Comparison with Other Studies
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hendricks, F.H. The Ideal Physician. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 1959, 51, 292. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Lahti, S.; Tuutti, H.; Hausen, H.; Kaariainen, R. Opinions of Different Subgroups of Dentists and Patients about the Ideal Dentist and the Ideal Patient. Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1995, 23, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lahti, S.; Tuutti, H.; Hausen, H.; Kaarianen, R. Patients’ Expectations of an Ideal Dentist and Their Views Concerning the Dentist They Visited: Do the Views Conform to the Expectations and What Determines How Well They Conform? Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1996, 24, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamprecht, R.; Struppek, J.; Heydecke, G.; Reissmann, D.R. Patients’ Criteria for Choosing a Dentist: Comparison between a University-Based Setting and Private Dental Practices. J. Oral Rehabil. 2020, 47, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, M.J.; Damiano, P.C.; Hand, J.; Denehy, G.E.; Cobb, D.S.; Qian, F. Consumers’ Choice of Dentists: How and Why People Choose Dental School Faculty Members as Their Oral Health Care Providers. J. Dent. Educ. 2012, 76, 695–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mills, I.; Frost, J.; Cooper, C.; Moles, D.R.; Kay, E. Patient-Centred Care in General Dental Practice—A Systematic Review of the Literature. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Health Organization. People-Centred and Integrated Health Services: An Overview of the Evidence: In-Terim Report; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rathert, C.; Wyrwich, M.D.; Boren, S.A. Patient-Centered Care and Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2013, 70, 351–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, J.; Pinto, A.; Batista, M.; de Paula, J.S.; Ambrosano, G. The Importance of the Evaluation of Expectations and Perceptions to Improve the Dental Service Quality. Int. J. Healthcare Qual. Assur. 2017, 30, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scambler, S.; Delgado, M.; Asimakopoulou, K. Defining Patient-Centred Care in Dentistry? A Systematic Review of the Dental Literature. Br. Dent. J. 2016, 221, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lahti, S.; Tuutti, H.; Hausen, H.; Kaariainen, R. Dentist and Patient Opinions about the Ideal Dentist and Patient -Developing a Compact Questionnaire. Commun. Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 1992, 20, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Groenestijn, M.A.J.; Waal, C.J.M.; Mileman, P.A.; Swallow, J.N. The Ideal Dentist. Soc. Sci. Med. Med. Psychol. Med. Sociol. 1980, 14, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ungureanu, M.-I.; Mocean, F. What Do Patients Take into Account When They Choose Their Dentist? Implications for Quality Improvement. Patient Prefer. Adher. 2015, 9, 1715–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bendapudi, N.M.; Berry, L.L.; Frey, K.A.; Parish, J.T.; Rayburn, W.L. Patients’ Perspectives on Ideal Physician Behaviors. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2006, 81, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chapon, M.-P.; Ghabi, A.; Choufani, C.; Caubere, A.; Moynot, J.-C.; Versier, G.; Wein, F.; Barbier, O. How Do Patients Choose Their Surgeon? Example of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 108, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, L.M.; Huggins, T.J. Empathy in the Dentist-Patient Relationship: Review and Application. N. Z. Dent. J. 2014, 110, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Nitschke, I.; Hahnel, S.; Jockusch, J. Health-Related Social and Ethical Considerations towards the Utilization of Dental Medical Services by Seniors: Influencing and Protective Factors, Vulnerability, Resilience and Sense of Coherence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nitschke, I.; Stillhart, A.; Kunze, J. Utilization of Dental Services in Old Age. Swiss Dent. J. 2015, 125, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Jockusch, J.; Hopfenmüller, W.; Nitschke, I. Influence of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia on Oral Health and the Utilization of Dental Services: Findings of the Oral Health, Bite Force and Dementia Study (OrBiD). BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBM. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27; IBM: Chicago, IL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Nitschke, I.; von Chlingensperg, R.; Schrock, A.; Hopfenmüller, W.; Jockusch, J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part I: Awareness and Selection Criteria, Infrastructure, and Dental Office Equipment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Toole, J.; Sinclair, M.; Leder, K. Maximising Response Rates in Household Telephone Surveys. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fennema, K.; Meyer, D.L.; Owen, N. Sex of Physician: Patients’ Preferences and Stereotypes. J. Fam. Pr. 1990, 30, 441–446. [Google Scholar]
Total | Sex | Age Group | Residence of Living | R2 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All [n/%] | Female [n/%] | Male [n/%] | [p] | ag 1 35–50 yrs. [n/%] | ag 2 70–84 yrs. [n/%] | ag 3 85 + yrs. [n/%] | [p] | Berlin (B) [n/%] | Leipzig (L) [n/%] | Mainz (M) [n/%] | [p] | ||
How important is it that the dentist… | |||||||||||||
… and his team are able to speak the patients’ native language? | |||||||||||||
n = 462 | n = 275 | n = 187 | 0.175 | n = 150 | n = 154 | n = 158 | ANOVA 0.016 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 2 0.006 | n = 151 | n = 149 | n = 162 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 M * L < 0.001 | 0.217 | |
Very unimportant | 2/0.4 | 1/0.4 | 1/0.5 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | 1/0.6 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 25/5.4 | 14/5.1 | 11/5.9 | 16/10.7 | 4/2.6 | 5/3.2 | 1/0.7 | 18/12.1 | 6/3.7 | ||||
Partly/partly | 69/15.0 | 33/11.8 | 36/19.3 | 28/18.7 | 21/13.6 | 20/12.7 | 4/2.6 | 48/32.2 | 17/10.5 | ||||
Important | 279/60.4 | 174/62.4 | 105/56.1 | 78/52.0 | 96/62.3 | 105/66.5 | 86/57.0 | 70/47.0 | 123/75.9 | ||||
Very important | 87/18.8 | 53/19.0 | 34/18.2 | 27/18.0 | 33/21.4 | 27/17.1 | 58/38.4 | 13/8.7 | 16/9.9 | ||||
… is non-smoker? | |||||||||||||
n = 463 | n = 276 | n = 187 | <0.001 | n = 151 | n = 154 | n = 158 | 0.856 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 162 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 | 0.126 | |
Very unimportant | 39/8.3 | 20/7.2 | 19/10.2 | 14/9.3 | 13/8.4 | 12/7.6 | 34/22.4 | 2/1.3 | 3/1.9 | ||||
Unimportant | 149/32.2 | 78/28.3 | 71/38.0 | 53/35.1 | 42/27.3 | 54/34.2 | 48/31.6 | 60/40.3 | 41/25.3 | ||||
Partly/partly | 98/21.2 | 51/18.5 | 47/25.1 | 32/21.2 | 38/24.7 | 28/17.7 | 30/19.7 | 37/24.8 | 31/19.1 | ||||
Important | 130/28.1 | 92/33.3 | 38/20.3 | 34/22.5 | 46/29.9 | 50/31.6 | 29/19.1 | 27/18.1 | 74/45.7 | ||||
Very important | 47/10.2 | 35/12.7 | 12/6.4 | 18/11.9 | 15/9.7 | 14/8.9 | 11/7.2 | 23/15.4 | 13/8.0 | ||||
… does not smell of smoke? | |||||||||||||
n = 463 | n = 276 | n = 187 | <0.001 | n = 151 | n = 154 | n = 158 | 0.638 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 162 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 L * M < 0.001 | 0.195 | |
Very unimportant | 9/1.9 | 4/1.4 | 5/2.7 | 3/2.0 | 4/2.6 | 2/1.3 | 4/2.6 | 3/2.0 | 2/1.2 | ||||
Unimportant | 57/12.3 | 19/6.9 | 38/20.3 | 16/10.6 | 19/12.3 | 22/13.9 | 7/4.6 | 39/26.2 | 11/6.8 | ||||
Partly/partly | 47/10.2 | 18/6.5 | 29/15.5 | 19/12.6 | 14/9.1 | 14/8.9 | 12/7.9 | 30/20.1 | 5/3.1 | ||||
Important | 224/48.4 | 147/53.3 | 77/41.2 | 70/46.4 | 78/50.6 | 76/48.1 | 61/40.1 | 45/30.2 | 118/72.8 | ||||
Very important | 126/27.2 | 88/31.9 | 38/20.3 | 43/28.5 | 39/25.3 | 44/27.8 | 68/44.7 | 32/21.5 | 26/16.0 | ||||
… has a well-groomed appearance? | |||||||||||||
n = 465 | n = 278 | n = 187 | <0.001 | n = 152 | n = 155 | n = 158 | ANOVA 0.04 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 0.084 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 164 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 L * M < 0.001 | 0.296 | |
Very unimportant | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 7/1.5 | 2/0.7 | 5/2.7 | 2/1.3 | 2/1.3 | 3/1.9 | 1/0.7 | 2/1.3 | 4/2.4 | ||||
Partly/partly | 47/10.1 | 8/2.9 | 39/20.9 | 13/8.6 | 13/8.4 | 21/13.3 | 0/0 | 44/29.5 | 3/1.8 | ||||
Important | 295/63.4 | 192/69.1 | 103/55.1 | 91/59.9 | 104/67.1 | 100/63.3 | 83/54.6 | 79/52.3 | 134/81.7 | ||||
Very important | 116/25.0 | 76/27.3 | 40/21.4 | 46/30.3 | 36/23.2 | 34/21.5 | 68/44.7 | 25/16.8 | 23/14.0 | ||||
… has a professional specialization? | |||||||||||||
n = 464 | n = 278 | n = 186 | 0.157 | n = 151 | n = 155 | n = 158 | 0.123 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 163 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 | 0.083 | |
Very unimportant | 8/4.1 | 9/3.2 | 8/4.3 | 5/3.3 | 6/3.9 | 6/3.8 | 16/10.5 | 0/0 | 1/0.6 | ||||
Unimportant | 94/20.3 | 53/19.1 | 41/22.0 | 24/15.9 | 38/24.5 | 32/20.3 | 41/27.0 | 24/16.1 | 29/17.8 | ||||
Partly/partly | 205/44.2 | 121/43.5 | 84/45.2 | 66/43.7 | 64/41.3 | 75/47.5 | 57/37.5 | 82/55.0 | 66/40.5 | ||||
Important | 127/27.4 | 82/29.5 | 45/24.2 | 44/29.1 | 42/27.1 | 41/25.9 | 30/19.7 | 33/22.1 | 64/39.3 | ||||
Very important | 21/4.5 | 13/4.7 | 8/4.3 | 12/7.9 | 5/3.2 | 4/2.5 | 8/5.3 | 10/6.7 | 3/1.8 | ||||
… participates in continuing education? | |||||||||||||
n = 461 | n = 277 | n = 184 | 0.924 | n = 150 | n = 154 | n = 157 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 2 <0.001 ag 1 * ag 3<0.001 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 160 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * M 0.019 L * M < 0.001 | 0.164 | |
Very unimportant | 4/0.7 | 3/1.1 | 1/0.5 | 1/0.7 | 2/1.3 | 1/0.6 | 3/2.0 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 28/6.1 | 16/5.8 | 12/6.5 | 3/2.0 | 13/8.4 | 12/7.6 | 17/11.2 | 8/5.4 | 3/1.9 | ||||
Partly/partly | 92/20.0 | 49/17.7 | 43/23.4 | 16/10.7 | 34/22.1 | 42/26.8 | 21/13.8 | 63/42.3 | 8/5.0 | ||||
Important | 269/58.4 | 172/62.1 | 97/52.7 | 92/61.3 | 89/57.8 | 88/56.1 | 81/53.3 | 54/36.2 | 134/83.8 | ||||
Very important | 68/14.8 | 37/13.4 | 31/16.8 | 38/25.3 | 16/10.4 | 14/8.9 | 30/19.7 | 23/15.4 | 15/9.4 | ||||
… maintains a relationship of trust with you? | |||||||||||||
n = 463 | n = 276 | n = 187 | 0.058 | n = 152 | n = 155 | n = 159 | ANOVA 0.023 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 2 0.040 ag 1 * ag 3 0.024 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 162 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * M < 0.001 | 0.097 | |
Very unimportant | 1/0.2 | 1/0.4 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 1/0.2 | 1/0.4 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 1/0.6 | ||||
Partly/partly | 9/2.0 | 2/0.7 | 7/3.7 | 4/2.6 | 0/0 | 5/3.2 | 5/3.3 | 3/2.0 | 1/0.6 | ||||
Important | 222/47.9 | 128/46.4 | 94/50.3 | 53/34.9 | 89/58.2 | 80/50.6 | 48/31.6 | 71/47.7 | 103/63.6 | ||||
Very important | 230/49.7 | 144/52.2 | 86/46.0 | 93/61.2 | 64/41.8 | 73/46.2 | 98/64.5 | 75/50.3 | 57/35.2 | ||||
… starts his treatment on time? | |||||||||||||
n = 463 | n = 276 | n = 187 | 0.561 | n = 151 | n = 155 | n = 157 | 0.367 | n = 151 | n = 148 | n = 164 | ANOVA 0.037 Bonferoni B * M 0.035 | 0.063 | |
Very unimportant | 2/0.4 | 2/0.7 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 2/1.3 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 26/5.6 | 18/6.5 | 8/4.3 | 7/4.6 | 12/7.7 | 7/4.5 | 10/6.6 | 0/0 | 16/9.8 | ||||
Partly/partly | 156/33.7 | 89/32.2 | 67/35.8 | 48/31.8 | 54/34.8 | 54/34.4 | 41/27.2 | 67/45.3 | 48/29.3 | ||||
Important | 232/50.1 | 142/51.4 | 90/48.1 | 78/51.7 | 77/49.7 | 77/49.0 | 67/44.4 | 71/48.0 | 94/57.3 | ||||
Very important | 47/10.2 | 25/9.1 | 22/11.8 | 18/11.9 | 12/7.7 | 17/10.8 | 31/20.5 | 10/6.8 | 6/3.7 | ||||
… has enough time for his treatment? | |||||||||||||
n = 464 | n = 277 | n = 187 | 0.407 | n = 152 | n = 155 | n = 157 | ANOVA 0.068 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 0.017 | n = 152 | n = 148 | n = 164 | 0.150 | 0.069 | |
Very unimportant | 0/ | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 4/0.8 | 3/1.1 | 1/0.5 | 2/1.3 | 2/1.3 | 0/0 | 4/2.6 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Partly/partly | 25/5.4 | 10/3.6 | 15/8.0 | 6/3.9 | 10/6.5 | 9/5.7 | 10/6.6 | 11/7.4 | 4/2.4 | ||||
Important | 301/64.9 | 184/66.4 | 117/62.6 | 88/57.9 | 98/63.2 | 115/73.2 | 78/51.3 | 93/62.8 | 130/79.3 | ||||
Very important | 134/28.9 | 80/28.9 | 54/28.9 | 56/36.8 | 45/29.0 | 33/21.0 | 60/39.5 | 44/29.7 | 30/18.3 | ||||
… has patience during treatment? | |||||||||||||
n = 464 | n = 277 | n = 187 | 0.003 | n = 152 | n = 155 | n = 157 | ANOVA 0.031 Bonferoni ag 1 * ag 3 0.018 | n = 152 | n = 148 | n = 164 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M < 0.001 | 0.119 | |
Very unimportant | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 4/0.9 | 2/0.7 | 2/1.1 | 3/2.0 | 1/0.6 | 0/0 | 3/2.0 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | ||||
Partly/partly | 20/4.3 | 7/2.5 | 13/7.0 | 3/2.0 | 10/6.5 | 7/4.5 | 5/3.3 | 14/9.5 | 1/0.6 | ||||
Important | 285/61.4 | 166/59.9 | 119/63.6 | 82/53.9 | 94/60.6 | 109/69.4 | 67/44.1 | 89/60.1 | 129/78.7 | ||||
Very important | 155/33.4 | 102/36.8 | 53/28.3 | 64/42.1 | 50/32.3 | 41/26.1 | 77/50.7 | 44/29.7 | 34/20.7 | ||||
Is there… | |||||||||||||
… a gender preference when choosing a dentist? | |||||||||||||
n = 464 | n = 279 | n = 185 | 0.974 | n = 151 | n = 154 | n = 159 | 0.412 | n = 151 | n = 150 | n = 163 | 0.128 | 0.031 | |
Female dentist | 56/12.1 | 28/10.0 | 28/15.1 | 22/14.6 | 17/11.0 | 17/10.7 | 21/13.9 | 23/15.3 | 12/7.4 | ||||
Male dentist | 110/23.7 | 71/25.4 | 39/21.1 | 31/20.5 | 45/29.2 | 34/21.4 | 32/21.2 | 41/27.3 | 37/22.7 | ||||
Irrelevant | 298/64.2 | 180/64.5 | 118/63.8 | 98/64.9 | 92/59.4 | 108/67.9 | 98/64.9 | 86/57.3 | 114/69.9 | ||||
… an age preference when choosing a dentist? (preferred age in years: Median (Range)) | |||||||||||||
n = 463 | n = 278 | n = 185 | 0.506 | n = 152 | n = 155 | n = 159 | 0.323 | n = 150 | n = 150 | n = 163 | ANOVA 0.011 Bonferoni B * L 0.009 | 0.045 | |
No | 284/61.3 | 167/60.1 | 117/62.6 | 102/67.1 | 88/56.8 | 97/61.0 | 104/69.3 | 78/52.0 | 102/62.6 | ||||
Yes | 179/38.7 | 111/39.9 | 68/36.8 | 50/32.9 | 67/43.2 | 62/39.0 | 46/30.7 | 72/48.0 | 61/37.4 | ||||
Preferred age Median (Range) | n = 179 | n = 111 | n = 68 | n = 50 | n = 67 | n = 62 | n = 46 | n = 72 | n = 61 | ||||
Mean ± SD | 40 (27–50) | 40 (30–50) | 40 (27–50) | 40 (30–50) | 40 (27–50) | 43.5 (30–50) | 40 (27–50) | 40 (30–50) | 45 (30–50) | ||||
41.5 ± 5.5 | 41.6 ± 5.2 | 41.2 ± 6.0 | 39.1 ± 5.4 | 41.6 ± 5.3 | 43.3 ± 5.1 | 39.9 ± 5.8 | 40.9 ± 5.9 | 43.4 ± 4.2 | |||||
… a desired work experience in years (preferred work experience in years: Mean ± SD) | |||||||||||||
n = 249 | n = 154 | n = 95 | 0.637 | n = 74 | n = 91 | n = 84 | 0.544 | n = 72 | n = 77 | n = 100 | 0.149 | 0.061 | |
Mean ± SD | 9.0 ± 5.8 | 9.0 ± 6.2 | 8.9 ± 5.1 | 7.5 ± 4.2 | 9.6 ± 7.2 | 9.6 ± 5.1 | 6.0 ± 3.7 | 11.6 ± 6.4 | 9.1 ± 5.6 | ||||
How important is … | |||||||||||||
… a welcoming reception in the dental office to you? | |||||||||||||
n = 465 | n = 278 | n = 187 | <0.001 | n = 151 | n = 155 | n = 159 | 0.588 | n = 152 | n = 149 | n = 164 | ANOVA 0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 B * M 0.003 L * M 0.002 | 0.186 | |
Very unimportant | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 1/0.3 | 1/0.4 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 1/0.6 | 0/0 | 1/0.7 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Partly/partly | 43/9.2 | 11/4.0 | 32/17.1 | 17/11.3 | 11/7.1 | 15/9.4 | 2/1.3 | 33/22.1 | 8/4.9 | ||||
Important | 288/61.9 | 169/60.8 | 119/63.6 | 92/60.9 | 105/67.7 | 91/57.2 | 85/55.9 | 86/57.7 | 117/71.3 | ||||
Very important | 133/28.6 | 97/34.8 | 36/19.3 | 42/27.8 | 38/24.5 | 53/33.3 | 64/42.1 | 30/20.1 | 39/23.8 | ||||
… it to you that the dental office staff and the dentist interact with each other in a friendly manner? | |||||||||||||
n = 466 | n = 279 | n = 187 | 0.002 | n = 152 | n = 155 | n = 159 | 0.824 | n = 152 | n = 150 | n = 164 | ANOVA <0.001 Bonferoni B * L < 0.001 L * M < 0.001 | 0.2 | |
Very unimportant | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | ||||
Unimportant | 15/3.2 | 8/2.9 | 7/3.7 | 5/3.3 | 4/2.6 | 6/3.8 | 9/5.9 | 3/2.0 | 3/1.8 | ||||
Partly/partly | 81/17.4 | 30/10.8 | 51/27.3 | 26/17.1 | 27/17.4 | 28/17.6 | 13/8.6 | 66/44–0 | 2/1.2 | ||||
Important | 268/57.5 | 174/62.4 | 94/50.3 | 83/54.6 | 98/63.2 | 87/54.7 | 84/55.3 | 67/44.7 | 117/71.3 | ||||
Very important | 102/21.9 | 67/24.0 | 35/18.7 | 38/25.0 | 26/16.8 | 38/23.9 | 46/30.3 | 14/9.3 | 42/25.6 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nitschke, I.; Ulbrich, T.; Schrock, A.; Hopfenmüller, W.; Jockusch, J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part II: Personal Characteristics and Soft Skills. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148621
Nitschke I, Ulbrich T, Schrock A, Hopfenmüller W, Jockusch J. What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part II: Personal Characteristics and Soft Skills. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148621
Chicago/Turabian StyleNitschke, Ina, Thomas Ulbrich, Annett Schrock, Werner Hopfenmüller, and Julia Jockusch. 2022. "What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part II: Personal Characteristics and Soft Skills" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148621
APA StyleNitschke, I., Ulbrich, T., Schrock, A., Hopfenmüller, W., & Jockusch, J. (2022). What Counts for the Old and Oldest Old?—An Analysis of Patient Criteria for Choosing a Dentist—Part II: Personal Characteristics and Soft Skills. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148621