ArticleBMC oral health2026
Differences in understanding of explanations and risk perception between dental staff and patients: a questionnaire study at a university hospital.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeProper self-care necessitates behavioral changes, underpinned by correct knowledge. Oral health literacy (OHL) research constitutes a fundamental foundation for fostering effective self-care practices. However, the extent of the awareness gap between patients and dental staff regarding explanations provided during treatment remains unknown. This descriptive study was conducted to serve as an initial step in bridging this gap.
methodsQuestionnaires were distributed to 92 dental staff members and 205 patients at university hospitals, with responses from 72 staff members and 157 patients.
resultsIn the category assessing understanding of explanations (patient vs. dental staff), patients’ self-assessed understanding exceeded the dental staff’s estimates in three aspects: disease name (p = 0.03, r = 0.17), treatment period (p = 0.01, r = 0.21), and pain relief (p = 0.01, r = 0.19). Regarding health self-awareness, the high-scoring group significantly outperformed the low-scoring group in explaining treatment risks (p = 0.03, r = 0.21) and understanding (p = 0.01, r = 0.23). Nevertheless, patients’ risk recognition was higher than that of dental staff in three aspects: root canal treatment (p < 0.01, r = 0.23), holes in the teeth (p < 0.01, r = 0.24), and bleeding during toothbrushing (p = 0.02, r = 0.17). Questions on “crack” (p = 0.02, r = 0.21) by sex, holes in one’s own teeth (p = 0.05, r = 0.03), and feeling one’s own teeth wobble (p < 0.01, r = 0.07) in the intergenerational comparison showed significant differences.
conclusionDental staff should not be satisfied merely with having "explained" something to the patient; they must engage in a confirmation process to verify the patient's correct understanding of the information or to identify excessive anxiety.
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.