Search

Objectives: The aim of this cross‐sectional study was to explore the structural validity and internal consistency reliability of General Anxiety Disorder‐7, Patient Health Questionnaire‐8, 15 and Jaw Functional Limitation Scale‐20 in patients with chronic pain of temporomandibular disorders. Materials and Methods: Validity and reliability were assessed in 129 patients diagnosed according to the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders. Structural validity was explored using factor analysis, and internal consistency by calculating Cronbach α. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a suitable 2‐factor model for Patient Health Questionnaire‐8, with Cronbach α of 0.89, and 0.86. One and 2‐factor models were suitable for General Anxiety Disorder‐7, with overall Cronbach α of 0.93 for the 1‐factor model, and 0.91 and 0.84 for both factors in a 2‐factor model. A 4‐factor solution was appropriate for Patient Health Questionnaire‐15, with Cronbach α of 0.72, 0.57, 0.71 and 0.73 for each factor separately. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to explore the factor structure of Jaw Functional Limitation Scale 20, and a 3‐factor solution was appropriate. Conclusions: This study provides positive evidence of structural validity and internal consistency of these questionnaires in patients with pain of temporomandibular disorders. However, additional testing is required to explore further psychometric properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The importance of the patients' clinical experience has been reinforced several times over the last decade by healthcare organisations and policy makers. Routine gathering of experience data can help in enhancing patient‐centred care and provide guidance to quality improvement schemes. Patient‐reported experience measures can help to that end. The aim of this study was to develop a patient‐reported experience measure to evaluate the experience of patients with temporomandibular disorders while receiving healthcare. Methods: Input from several sources was utilised to develop the tool; previous literature, patients with temporomandibular disorders, and experts in the field. A qualitative study was conducted following the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments guidance to generate the items of the questionnaire, which subsequently underwent cognitive testing. Results: Seventeen patients took part in the qualitative study, in addition to six healthcare professionals. The preliminary questionnaire consisted of 28 questions with six response options. Conclusions: This patient‐reported experience measure is a brief tool to evaluate the clinical experience of patients with temporomandibular disorders. Patients' involvement ensured face and content validity of the questionnaire, in addition to the relevance, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) with the National Health Service and to discover their healthcare priorities when seeking treatment. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were used. They were directed using a topic guide covering subjects such as initial visits in primary care, referrals to secondary care, and the effect on symptoms. The discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was utilised to analyse the data. Results: In total, 15 participants took part in three focus groups. Six themes were identified: "access to appropriate care", "organised and coordinated care", "receiving a diagnosis and enough information", "interaction with the clinical staff", "treatment strategies and having an 'action plan'" and "support and social networks". Conclusions: The participants gave accounts of the difficulties encountered in healthcare in general terms and specific to TMD. Most notable was the struggle to access appropriate care, receive a diagnosis and be understood. Our findings suggest that delays in delivering appointments with people of expertise may have caused the worsening of symptoms. However, when a pleasant experience was encountered, access to care was fast, the clinician was understanding and communication with the clinical team was good. These provided positive experiences and were appreciated by the patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]