Assessing the Acceptability of Less Invasive Caries Removal Techniques for treating Deep Carious Lesions: A Conjoint Survey among Dentists Practicing in a Midwestern American State.

This study identified factors that influence dentists' decisions regarding less invasive caries removal techniques such as stepwise removal (SW) and selective removal (SE) using a marketing research technique, conjoint analysis. A survey was sent to 1,434 dentists practicing in Iowa. Dentists were randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire to rate the likelihood they would use either SW/SE in hypothetical clinical scenarios. The scenarios were carefully created by conjoint design and included three relevant attributes: depth of lesion, hardness of carious dentin, and patient age. Descriptive and conjoint analyses were performed to assess trade-offs between these attributes, using SPSS. The study revealed that depth of lesion was the most important factor in the dentists' decisions (49 importance value) when choosing a SW to treat a deep carious lesion, followed by hardness of carious dentin and patient age (21 importance value). For the SE group, depth of the lesion was also the predominant factor when selecting a treatment. The study also identified that a high proportion of dentists (24.9%) indicated they would never consider using SW or SE under any circumstances. Our survey showed that depth of lesion was the most important reason to select a less invasive caries removal method. The high proportion of dentists indicating they would never consider selective caries removal (SE) techniques suggests that these less invasive options are underutilized.

Increased levels of autistic traits are associated with atypical moral judgments.

Despite evidence often showing differences between groups with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and neurotypical controls in moral judgment, the precise nature of these differences has been difficult to establish. At least two reasons for this are (1) that ASD (and its associated characteristics) is difficult to define and (2) that morality, and the inclinations that undergird it, are hard to measure empirically. These challenges have made conclusive associations between ASD and particular patterns of moral judgment hard to come by. Thus, in the current study, participants levels of a traits associated with ASD were assessed by their responses to a questionnaire (i.e., the Iowa Screener) before they made moral judgments across a set of 20 moral dilemmas that independently assess utilitarian and deontological processing. Interestingly, results indicated that increased levels of autistic traits were associated with fewer moral judgments corresponding to either moral theory; that is, higher levels of autistic traits were associated with atypical patterns of moral judgment. In addition, and consistent with some prior methods (e.g., Gaeth et al., 2016), participant scores on the Iowa Screener, as well as their self-identification, were used to categorize participants between two groups (i.e., ASD and Typical) for exploratory purposes. Taken together, this research better informs the relationship between ASD and its associated traits with moral judgment and can inform certain discrepant findings in the field. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed, such as whether traits associated with ASD might relate to alternative moral inclinations, beyond deontology and utilitarianism.

Corrigendum: Extending decision making competence to special populations: a pilot study of persons on the autism spectrum.

[This corrects the article on p. 539 in vol. 6, PMID: 25972831.].

Predicting dentists' decisions: a choice-based conjoint analysis of Medicaid participation.

OBJECTIVES: Private practice dentists are the major source of care for the dental safety net; however, the proportion of dentists who participate in state Medicaid programs is low, often due to poor perceptions of the program's administration and patient population. Using a discrete choice experiment and a series of hypothetical scenarios, this study evaluated trade-offs dentists make when deciding to accept Medicaid patients. METHODS: An online choice-based conjoint survey was sent to 272 general dentists in Iowa. Hypothetical scenarios presented factors at systematically varied levels. The primary determination was whether dentists would accept a new Medicaid patient in each scenario. Using an ecological model of behavior, determining factors were selected from the categories of policy, administration, community, and patient population to estimate dentists' relative preferences. RESULTS: 62 percent of general dentists responded to the survey. The probability of accepting a new Medicaid patient was highest (81 percent) when reimbursement rates were 85 percent of the dentist's fees, patients never missed appointments, claims were approved on first submission, and no other practices in the area accepted Medicaid. Although dentists preferred higher reimbursement rates, 56 percent would still accept a new Medicaid patient when reimbursement decreased to 55 percent if they were told that the patient would never miss appointments and claims would be approved on initial submission. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed trade-offs that dentists make when deciding to participate in Medicaid. Findings indicate that states can potentially improve Medicaid participation without changing reimbursement rates by making improvements in claims processing and care coordination to reduce missed appointments.

Extending decision making competence to special populations: a pilot study of persons on the autism spectrum.

The area of decision making has much to offer in our effort to understand special populations. This pilot study is an example of just such a project, where we illustrate how traditional decision making tools and tasks can be used to uncover strengths and weaknesses within a growing population of young adults with autism. In this pilot project we extended accounts of autistic behavior such as those derived from "theory of mind" to predict key components of decision making in high-functioning young adults on the autism spectrum. A battery of tests was administered to 15 high-functioning college students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), focusing on decision making competence (DMC) and other aspects of decision making related to known deficits associated with autism. Data from this group were compared to data from unselected college students receiving the same measures. First, as a test of a key social deficit associated with autism, the target group scored much lower on the Empathy Quotient scale. Traditional elements of decision making competency such as Numeracy and application of decision rules were comparable across groups. However, there were differences in thinking style, with the ASD group showing lesser ability and engagement in intuitive thinking, and they showed lower levels of risk taking. For comparisons within the ASD group, autobiographical reports concerning individual lifestyles and outcomes were used to derive a scale of Social Functioning. The lowest scoring individuals showed the lowest levels of intuitive thinking, the lowest perceived levels of others' endorsement of socially undesirable behaviors, and the lowest ability to discriminate between "good" and "bad" risks. Results are discussed in terms of interventions that might aid high-functioning young adults with ASD in their everyday decision making.