The Roles of Patients' Authenticity and Accepting External Influence, and Clinicians' Treatment Styles in Predicting Patients' Dental Anxiety and Avoidance of Dental Appointments.

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari,Hallgeir Halvari,Edward L Deci

doi:10.5964/ejop.v16i1.1664

Abstract

A substantial proportion of adults suffer from high dental anxiety, which is related to poor oral health and functioning. Using authenticity theory and self-determination theory, we applied a model testing two moderated mediation hypotheses: (i) the negative indirect association between authenticity and avoiding dental appointments through dental anxiety would be more evident when clinicians provides higher levels of autonomy support; and (ii) the indirect positive association between accepting external influence and avoiding dental appointments through dental anxiety would be more evident when clinicians provides higher levels of controllingness. Participants (N = 208) responded to a survey with validated questionnaires. The model with hypotheses were tested using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in LISREL and Conditional Process Modeling (moderated mediation). The results supported our hypotheses. The SEM model tested was found to fit the data well. Patient’s personality and dental clinic treatment environments predicted 38% of the variance in dental anxiety, which explained 38% of avoidance of treatment.

Highlights

Assessments Gender (1 = female and 2 = male)
All other variables in the model are latent in testing the model in Figure 1, factor loadings for items / parcels were all significant, and they were for authenticity (.84, .71, .54, .53), for accepting external influence (.82, .81, .72, .67), for perceived autonomy support (.90, .85, .82), for perceived controllingness (.84, .80, .73), for dental anxiety (.91, .82, .82, .77, .73), and for avoiding dental appointments (.91, .91)
Regarding the perceived controlling treatment style, 54% responded with low scores (7-12; “disagree”), 35% with moderate scores (13-24; “somewhat agree”), and 11% responded with high scores (25-36; “agree”)

Summary

Introduction

Assessments Gender (1 = female and 2 = male). The two interaction terms (autonomy support X authenticity and controllingness X accepting external influence) were treated as observed variables in order to simplify the model. For the same reason and due to the large number of variables and indicators (i.e., scale items) relative to the sample size, two of them were parceled. All other variables in the model are latent in testing the model, factor loadings for items / parcels were all significant, and they were (loadings in parentheses) for authenticity (.84, .71, .54, .53), for accepting external influence (.82, .81, .72, .67), for perceived autonomy support (.90, .85, .82), for perceived controllingness (.84, .80, .73), for dental anxiety (.91, .82, .82, .77, .73), and for avoiding dental appointments (.91, .91) All other variables in the model are latent in testing the model in Figure 1, factor loadings for items / parcels were all significant, and they were (loadings in parentheses) for authenticity (.84, .71, .54, .53), for accepting external influence (.82, .81, .72, .67), for perceived autonomy support (.90, .85, .82), for perceived controllingness (.84, .80, .73), for dental anxiety (.91, .82, .82, .77, .73), and for avoiding dental appointments (.91, .91)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion