Table 3.
Characteristics of studies included in the two meta-analyses regarding a negative attitude towards expanded scope and independent practice of dental hygienists
| Negative attitude towards | Study and country (state or province) | Sample type (size) | Response rate (%) | Gender distribution in sample | Profession | Proportion of practitioners with a negative attitude | Operationalisation of attitude |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Female | |||||||
| Extended scope | Abelsen & Olsen26, Norway | Random (453) | 45.0 | 39.0 | Dentist | 0.40 | ‘…desirable to delegate’ |
| Random (108) | 42.0 | 99.1 | Dental hygienist | 0.45 | |||
| Ayers et al.55, New Zealand | Population (211) | 73.2 | 95.3 | Dental hygienist | 0.19 | ‘Interested in expanding range of procedures’ | |
| Moffat & Coates60, New Zealand | Random (330) | 66.8 | 30.4 | Dentist | 0.41 | ‘consider employing a dual-trained Oral Health graduate’ | |
| Murtomaa & Haugejorden61, Finland | Random (313) | 85.0 | 65.6 | Dentist | 0.31 | ‘…changes in the tasks performed by Extended Duty Dental Hygienist’ | |
| Van Wyk et al.42, South Africa | Random (138) | 47.0 | Data not available | Dental hygienist | 0.04 | ‘functions of the oral hygienist should be expanded?’ | |
| Independence | Adams54, Canada (Ontario) | Stratified (391) | 62.0 | 45.5 | Dentist | 0.96 | ‘Dental hygienists should be allowed to practice independently of dentists’ |
| Stratified (383) | 78.0 | 88.0 | Dental hygienists | 0.29 | |||
| Kaldenberg & Smith58, USA (Oregon) | Random (385) | 71.0 | 5.4 | Dentists | 0.82 | ‘I support independent practice for hygienists’ | |
| Van Dam et al.63, the Netherlands | Convenience (304) | 45.9 | 57.2 | Dentist | 0.16 | ‘not afraid that the independent dental hygienist will become competitor of the dentist’ |