Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on the interviewed and non-interviewed cohorts. Their examination marks were obtained from the academic office, psychological health was measured by DASS-21, personality traits were measured by USMaP-15, and emotional intelligence was measured by USMEQ-17.
Results: The interviewed cohort performed significantly better in the clinical examination than the non-interviewed cohort. Conversely, the non-interviewed cohort performed significantly better in the theoretical examination. Depression, anxiety, and stress level between the two cohorts showed no difference. The interviewed cohort demonstrated more desirable personality traits, higher emotional intelligence, and social competence than the non-interviewed cohort.
Discussion: This study provides evidence to support the claim that the interview-based admission process has favourable outcomes on clinical performance, emotional intelligence, and personality traits. Several insights gained as a result of this study are discussed.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search using relevant keywords was conducted in PubMed-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared technology-based interventions with inactive controls in the treatment of moderate to severe dental anxiety were included.
RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included in the review. These studies investigated the effectiveness of video modeling, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, virtual reality exposure therapy, and distraction with music and audiovisual video material. Six studies examining video modeling, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, virtual reality exposure therapy, and distraction (audiovisual) showed significantly greater reductions in dental anxiety than inactive controls in both children and adults. None of the included studies followed Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines completely or reported sufficient data, thereby precluding a possible meta-analysis. Four out of seven included studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies supported the effectiveness of technology-based interventions in the treatment of dental anxiety in children and adults.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The quality of the methods of studies on the effects of technology-based interventions allows only limited inferences on the effects of these interventions. However, within the limitations of the systematic review, the results converge to suggest that technology-based interventions may be useful as an adjunct to standard dental care. High-quality RCTs are needed to determine the (relative) effectiveness of these interventions.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017064810.
Methods: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
Results: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
Limitations: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.
METHODS: We searched the reference lists of included studies from four electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar) from inception until November 2020. We included pre-post, quasiexperimental and case-control studies, as well as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that discussed medical play using the TBH concept as an intervention. Studies that involved sick patients and used interventions unlike the TBH were excluded. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this systematic review. Five specifically investigated the TBH method, while the others involved the same concept of medical play. Only three studies were RCTs. All of the studies report more than one outcome-mostly positive outcomes. Two report lower anxiety levels after intervention. Two found better healthcare knowledge, with one reporting increased feelings of happiness regarding visiting a doctor. Two studies found no change in anxiety or feelings, while another two found increased levels of fear and lowered mood after the medical play (which involved real medical equipment).
CONCLUSIONS: The practice of TBH has mostly positive outcomes, with lower anxiety levels and improved healthcare knowledge. Its effectiveness should be verified in future studies using a more robust methodology.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019106355.