目的:这项研究的目的是进行范围审查,以检查和总结与心理健康(MH)筛查和/或牙科治疗转诊相关的研究特征。
方法:我们遵循了系统评价和Meta分析指南的首选报告项目,并在多个数据库中搜索了与牙科护理相关的术语,MH关注,筛选,和推荐。包括的文章:(1)描述了在牙科诊所提供的护理,(2)描述了患者正在经历潜在的MH问题的情况,(3)不完全涉及牙科焦虑症,(4)涉及某种形式的MH筛查和/或转诊治疗。文章分析包括关键研究特征的总结,种类的证据,研究设计,以及中心概念和定义。
结果:搜索产生了2050条记录,最终包括26个。大多数研究仅涉及成年人(22,85%),但只有三个(12%)报告了乡村性(两个城市;一个混合),每个只有两个(8%)报告了种族或民族。15篇(58%)文章是前瞻性的,11篇(42%)是回顾性的。这些研究在研究设计上差异很大,从11项(42%)横断面方法到只有一项(4%)随机对照试验。使用34种筛查工具筛查43例MH症状,抑郁症和焦虑症筛查最频繁。很少有文章讨论推荐,实践工作流程,或后续结果。
结论:纳入的研究为牙科医生提供了关于MH筛查的可行选择的证据,引用,并进行后续行动,但缺乏关于这些过程的特异性。总的来说,需要更多的研究来阐明哪些工作流程对牙科医生最有效,并且在识别MH患者方面最有效.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review to examine and summarize the characteristics of research related to mental health (MH) screenings and/or referrals to treatment in dental practices.
METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for Scoping Reviews and searched multiple databases for terms connected with dental care, MH concerns, screening, and referral. Included articles: (1) described care provided in a dental practice, (2) described a situation where the patient is experiencing the potential MH problem, (3) did not involve dental anxiety exclusively, and (4) involved some form of MH screening and/or referral to treatment. Article analysis included a summary of key study characteristics, types of evidence, study design, and central concepts and definitions.
RESULTS: The search generated 2050 records, with 26 ultimately included. Most studies involved only adults (22, 85%), but only three (12%) reported on rurality (two urban; one mixed) and only two each (8%) reported race or ethnicity. Fifteen (58%) articles were prospective and 11 (42%) were retrospective. The studies varied widely in study designs, from 11 (42%) cross-sectional methodologies to only one (4%) randomized controlled trial. Thirty-four screening tools were used to screen for symptoms of 43 MH conditions, with depression and anxiety screened for most frequently. Few articles discussed making referrals, practice workflows, or follow-up outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Included studies provide evidence of viable options for dental practitioners regarding MH screening, referring, and conducting follow-up, but lack specificity regarding these processes. Overall, more research is needed to clarify what workflows are most efficient for dental practitioners and efficacious in identifying patients with MH concerns.