ArticleInternational journal of paediatric dentistry2025
Young people's and adults' views and experiences of decision-making to manage compromised first permanent molars: a qualitative study.
Article in International journal of paediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- GuREx-MIH: radiographic assessment of eruption patterns of second permanent molars and premolars in 11-year-olds after early extraction of the first permanent molar - a split-mouth trial.European journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Young people's and adults' views and experiences of decision-making to manage compromised first permanent molars: a qualitative study.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Advances in knowledge and practice benefiting the health and management of first permanent molars in children.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Public Valuations of Managing Compromised Molars: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle information on young people's and adults' views and experiences on decision-making for managing compromised first permanent molars (cFPM) exists.
aimTo establish young people's and adults' views and experiences of decision-making for managing cFPM.
designFace-to-face (online) semi-structured interviews were undertaken using an iteratively designed topic guide. Participants aged 12-65 were purposively sampled with recruitment from different dental clinics (three primary care, an out-of-hours emergency and one dental hospital). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes were generated from young people's interviews (n = 9): (i) influencing factors; (ii) long-term considerations; and (iii) shared decision-making. Three themes were generated from adults' interviews (n = 13): (i) influences that affect decisions; (ii) perceptions of the specialist's role; and (iii) importance of shared decision-making for children and young people.
conclusionSeveral factors influenced decision-making; for young people, professional opinions were important, and parental/peer influences less so. For adults, it was based on decisions on their prior experiences. Adults felt young people were abnormal if referred to a specialist. Young people wanted autonomy in decision-making to be respected; in reality, their views were rarely heard. There is potential to increase young people's involvement in shared decision-making for cFPM, which aligns with their aspirations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.