Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with eighteen dentists, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results: Fifteen codes were identified and organized into five overarching themes; factors influencing a screen; lesion factors; patient factors; PCD factors; and outcome. Although many dentists were screening regularly, some did not appear to be adopting a rigorous and systematic approach. A number of participants also placed more reliance on “classical” presentations of frank malignancy rather than early disease and were more influenced by the clinical history of the lesion. The importance placed on risk factors was varied and health promotional activities were not being undertaken by all. For some, explaining positive results and giving advice about alcohol was perceived as particularly difficult.
Conclusion: Overall, the results suggest that there is a lack of rigor in the examination for early disease and the delivery of health promotion. Further training is required to help dentists broach difficult issues with their patients.