正畸医生对睡眠呼吸障碍的认知与筛查实践：澳大利亚全国性调查

文献信息

中文摘要

研究目的： 本横断面研究旨在调查澳大利亚正畸医生对睡眠呼吸障碍（SDB）筛查的认知、态度和临床实践。
方法： 向澳大利亚正畸医师协会485名正式会员发放了一份经预试验的电子问卷。问题涉及人口学特征、筛查方法、感知障碍以及对教育和跨学科合作的态度。结果采用各条目对应的分母进行汇总，多选题百分比基于回答各条目的受访者人数计算。
结果： 可分析的应答率为31.8%（154/485）。大多数参与者（139/154，90.3%）主要在私人诊所执业，且位于城市或郊区（138/154，89.6%）。仅一小部分（25.2%）报告进行常规SDB筛查，而45.0%仅对选定病例进行筛查。在回答筛查方法问题的受访者中，非正式提问（83/104，79.8%）和临床检查（64/104，61.5%）最为常见。儿童睡眠问卷和STOP-Bang问卷的使用率分别为25/104（24.0%）和22/104（21.2%）。常规筛查的主要障碍是培训不足、缺乏标准化筛查方案以及与医疗专业人员合作有限。大多数受访者支持继续专业发展培训（102/146，69.9%）以及将SDB教学纳入临床牙科博士课程（127/146，87.0%）。
结论： 在澳大利亚正畸医生中，常规SDB筛查有限且以非正式方式为主。在澳大利亚背景下，专业机构和正畸培训项目应优先考虑经过验证的筛查方案、教育以及明确的跨学科转诊路径。

英文摘要

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to survey awareness, attitudes, and clinical practices regarding the screening of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) among orthodontists in Australia.
METHODS: A pilot-tested electronic survey was distributed to 485 full members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions were related to demographics, screening methods, perceived barriers, and attitudes toward education and interdisciplinary collaboration. Results were summarised using item-specific denominators, with multiple-response percentages based on the number of respondents answering each item.
RESULTS: The analysable response rate was 31.8% (154/485). Most participants (139/154, 90.3%) practiced primarily in private settings and in urban or suburban areas (138/154, 89.6%). Only a small proportion (25.2%) reported routine SDB screening, while 45.0% screened only in selected cases. Among respondents answering the screening-method questions, informal questions (83/104, 79.8%) and clinical examination (64/104, 61.5%) were most common. The Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire and STOP-Bang Questionnaire were used by 25/104 (24.0%) and 22/104 (21.2%), respectively. The main barriers to routine screening were insufficient training, lack of standardized screening protocols, and limited collaboration with medical professionals. Most respondents supported continuing professional development training (102/146, 69.9%) and inclusion of SDB teaching in the Doctor of Clinical Dentistry curriculum (127/146, 87.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Among Australian orthodontists, routine SDB screening was limited and predominantly informal. In the Australian setting, professional bodies and orthodontic training programs should prioritise validated screening protocols, education, and clear interdisciplinary referral pathways.