Zusammenfassung
Ziel: Vor dem Hintergrund der Patientencompliance als ein äußerst bedeutsamer Faktor für
den Erfolg einer kieferorthopädischen Behandlung war es das Ziel, intrapersonelle
und interpersonelle Faktoren zu ermitteln, welche die Compliance vorhersagen lassen.
Methodik: Über einen standardisierten Fragebogen wurde der Attributionsstil von 58 jugendlichen
Patienten erfasst und mit einem eigenen Fragebogen Einstellungen zur kieferorthopädischen
Behandlung, zum Arzt-Patienten-Verhältnis, sowie zum Trage- und Kontrollverhalten
ermittelt. Der eigene Fragebogen wurde vom Patienten und vom Behandler beantwortet.
Die Compliance wurde vom Behandler anhand folgender gängiger Compliance-Indikatoren
angegeben: Trageverhalten, Mundhygiene und Termineinhaltung.
Ergebnisse: Die Compliance korrelierte signifikant mit dem internalen Attributionsstil, nicht
aber mit dem von den Patienten angegebenen Trageverhalten. Der interpersonelle Vergleich
zeigte mangelnde Kenntnisse des Behandlers über den Tagesablauf und die damit verbundenen
Tragemöglichkeiten des Patienten.
Schlussfolgerung: Die Fragebogenantworten lassen darauf schließen, dass die Einschätzung der Compliance
ein subjektives Konstrukt des Behandlers darstellt, welches eher sozial-emo-tionale
Inhalte aufweist und nicht mit den Aussagen der Patienten zum Trageverhalten übereinstimmt,
wohl aber mit einer positiven Einstellung der Patienten zur selbstständigen Verantwortlichkeit.
Abstract
Objective: Having established the importance of compliance as a significant factor of a successful
orthodontic treatment, the aim of the present study was to evaluate intrapersonal
and interpersonal factors which could help predict patient compliance.
Methods: The attributional style of 58 patients was assessed by a standardised questionnaire.
An individual questionnaire was designed to determine attitudes concerning orthodontic
treatment, the doctor-patient relationship, the wearing behaviour and control behaviour.
The questionnaire was answered by the patient and by the orthodontist. The compliance
was evaluated by the orthodontist on the basis of commonly used indicators for compliance:
wearing time, oral hygiene and reliability of keeping the appointments.
Results: The results showed a significant correlation between the compliance and the attributional
style of the patients in positive situations, but not between the compliance and the
wearing behaviour estimated by the patient. The interpersonal comparison revealed
a lack of knowledge on the part of the orthodontist about the patients’ daily activities
and their ability to correctly wear their appliances.
Conclusion: The questionnaire answers show compliance to be a subjective construct of the orthodontist
demonstrating mostly social-emotional matters. There is no consistency with compliance
and the patients’ statement concerning their wearing behaviour but with a positive
attitude on the part of the patients demonstrating independent responsibility.
Schlüsselwörter
Compliance - Arzt-Patient-Verhältnis - kieferorthopädischen Behandlung - Attributionsstil
Key words
compliance - doctor-patient relationship - orthodontic treatment - attributional style
Literatur
- 1
Story RI.
Psychological issues in orthodontic practice.
Am J Orthod.
1966;
52
584-598
- 2 Haynes RB. Introduction. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL, Eds.
Compliance in health care. Baltimore: John Hopkins 1979
- 3
Bartsch A, Witt E, Sahm G, Schneider S.
Correlates of objective patient compliance with removable appliance wear.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1993;
104
378-86
- 4
Mehra T, Nanda RS, Sinha PK.
Orthodontists’ assessment and management of patient compliance.
Angle Orthod.
1998;
68
115-122
- 5
Dausch-Neumann D.
Die Motivation unserer kieferorthopädischen Patienten.
J Orofac Orthop.
1982;
43
29-37
- 6
Richter DD. et al .
Effect of behaviour modification on patient compliance in orthodontics.
Angle Orthod.
1998;
68
123-132
- 7
Laskin DM.
The doctor-patient relationship: a potential communication gap.
J Oral Surg.
1979;
37
786
- 8
Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A.
Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment-effects on compliance
and prediction of patients’ adaptation by personality variables.
Eur J Orthod.
2000;
22
307-315
- 9
Mortensen MG, Kiyak HA, Omnell L.
Patient and parent understanding of informed consent in orthodontics.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2003;
124
541-550
- 10
Ley P.
Satisfaction, compliance and communication.
Br J Clin Psychol.
1982;
21
241-254
- 11
Brattström V, Ingelsson M, Åberg E.
Treatment in co-operation in orthodontic patients.
Br J Orthod.
1991;
18
37-42
- 12
Nanda RS, Kierl MJ.
Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1992;
102
15-21
- 13
Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM.
The role of the headgear calendar in headgear compliance.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1993;
104
387-394
- 14
Northcutt ME.
The timing headgear.
Journal of clinical orthodontics.
1974;
8
321-324
- 15
Clemmer EJ, Hayes EW.
Patient cooperation in wearing orthodontic headgear.
Am J Orthod.
1979;
75
517-524
- 16 Heine W.
Untersuchung zur Frage der Mitarbeit der Patienten beim Tragen extraoraler Apparturen
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Einsicht in die Behandlungsnotwendigkeit. Dissertation, Hamburg 1985
- 17
Sander FG.
Könne Tragezeitmesser die Patienten zur Mitarbeit motivieren?.
Fortschr Kieferorthop.
1987;
48
363-370
- 18
Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E.
Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear.
Eur J Orthod.
1990-a;
12
297-301
- 19
Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS.
Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and
headgear wear.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1990;
97
336-348
- 20
Bos A, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B.
Towards a comprehensive model for the study of compliance in orthodontics.
Eur J Orthod.
2005;
27
296-301
- 21
Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E.
Reliability of patient reports on compliance.
Eur J Orthod.
1990-b;
12
438-446
- 22
Rotter JB, Mulry RC.
Internal versus external control of reinforcement and decision time.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1965;
2
598-604
- 23
Stiensmeier-Pelster J, Schürmann M.
Performance deficits following failure: Integrating motivational and cognitive aspects
of learned helplessness.
Anxiety Research.
1998;
2
211-222
- 24 Stiensmeier-Pelster J, Schürmann M, Eckert C, Pelster A.
Attributionsstil-Fragebogen für Kinder und Jugendliche (ASF-KJ). Göttingen-Bern-Toronto: Hogrefe 1994
- 25
Moawad K.
The patient is always right.
J Clin Orthod.
1988;
22
46-47
- 26
Mayerson M.
Patient appreciation: the cornerstone of internal marketing.
J Clin Orthod.
1990;
24
747-751
- 27
Allan TK, Hodgson EW.
T he use of personality measurements as a determinant of patient cooperation in an
orthodontic practice.
Am J Orthod.
1968;
54
433-440
- 28
Sinha PK, Nanda RS, MacNeil DW.
Perceived orthodontist behaviors that predict patient satisfaction, orthodontist-patient
relationship, and patient adherence in orthodontic treatment.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1996;
110
370-377
- 29
El-Mangoury NH.
Orthodontic cooperation.
Am J Orthod.
1981;
80
604-622
- 30
Klages U, Sergl HG, Burucker I.
Relations between verbal behavior of the orthodontist and communicative cooperation
of the patient in regular orthodontic visits.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1992;
102
265-269
- 31
Witt E, Bartsch A.
Effects of information-giving and communication during orthodontic consultation and
treatment. Part 3: Optimized orthodontist-patient communication.
J Orofac Orthop.
1996;
57
154-167
- 32
Albino JE, Lawrence SD, Lopes CE, Nash LB, Tedesco LA.
Cooperation of adolescents in orthodontic treatment.
J Behav Med.
1991;
14
53-70
- 33
Cole WA.
Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2002;
121
419-423
- 34 Fraisse P.
Psychologie der Zeit. München: Reinhardt 1985
- 35 Piaget J.
Die Entwicklung der Zeitwahrnehmung beim Kinde. Zürich: Rascher 1955
Korrespondenzadresse
Dr. E. Müssig
Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie
Im Neuenheimer Feld 400
69120 Heidelberg
eMail: eva_muessig@med.uni-heidelberg.de
