Four Signals: Qualitative Analysis of Dental Complaints

According to the PLOS One study published on November 12, 2026, qualitative analysis of dental complaints shows that patient concerns cluster around four connected domains: access, communication and attitudes, clinical treatment, and ethical or professional conduct.

The study concludes that dental complaints can signal breakdowns in trust, patient agency, relational security, and professional obligations, rather than representing isolated dissatisfaction with a single appointment.

• The researchers identified 857 studies through searches conducted in September 2024 and updated on August 26, 2026, then included 19 studies in the qualitative meta-synthesis.
• Deficient clinical treatment appeared in all 19 included studies, representing 100% of the qualitative evidence base analyzed by the authors.
• Unethical and unprofessional conduct appeared in 17 of 19 studies, representing 89% of the included studies.
• The four domains were present together in 11 of the 19 studies, showing that patient complaints often combine clinical, relational, and systemic concerns.
• One patient quoted in the study described the communication failure directly: “the sort of person who got you into the surgery, said ‘Hi’, got the drill out and started almost straightaway.”

The authors used qualitative meta-synthesis to interpret recurring meanings across previously published qualitative findings rather than simply counting complaint categories. The PLOS One study followed the six-step approach of Sandelowski and Barroso, treated the included studies as a higher-order case, and reported the synthesis using PRISMA guidance for qualitative evidence synthesis.

The researchers searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL in September 2024, then updated the search on August 26, 2026. The search initially identified 857 studies, 29 of which proceeded to full-text review, and 19 of which met the inclusion criteria.

The PLOS One researchers analyzed results and findings sections from the included studies, including participant quotations and author-interpreted themes. The first reviewer used Atlas.ti 25 for coding, while the second reviewer independently reviewed and challenged the coding outputs.

The analysis combined semantic coding, which captured what patients explicitly described, with latent coding, which interpreted underlying relational and ethical meanings. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes across studies while retaining differences between settings and complaint sources.

A patient quoted in the study summarized the importance of clear explanations: “Didn’t explain the procedure until it was completed.” Another patient described the emotional effect of poor care as “a bad experience for a person with dental anxiety.”

Dental researchers should analyze complaints as patient-generated evidence about how care functions, not only as records of adverse events. The PLOS One study interprets complaints as signals of organizational responsiveness, communication quality, clinical safety, continuity of care, and professional accountability.

The first domain, impeded access to dental care, included appointment availability, responsiveness, inaccessible premises, waiting times, and financial concerns. The study reports that 11 of the 19 included studies described complaints about the high cost of dental treatment.

The second domain, unsatisfactory communication, interactions, and attitudes, included inadequate explanations, unclear costs, technical language, poor listening, lack of empathy, and rude or dismissive behavior. One patient quoted in the study said, “A lot of dentists use too many technical terms that the average person on the street doesn’t understand.”

The third domain, deficient clinical treatment, included poor treatment quality, pain, complications, inadequate aftercare, infection-control concerns, and unmet expectations. The authors found this domain in every included study, but they caution that the synthesis does not establish how common these complaints are across all dental patients.

The fourth domain, unethical and unprofessional conduct, included failures of informed consent, dishonesty, discrimination, poor record keeping, fraud, negligence, and refusal to accept accountability. For healthcare quality teams, these themes support coding complaint narratives by both event type and the underlying threat to trust or patient autonomy.

The authors state that complaints “may be understood as signals of broader systemic and relational functioning.” That interpretation makes qualitative analysis useful for service improvement, professional education, complaint management, and patient-centered care design.

The 2026 PLOS One meta-synthesis shows why qualitative analysis of dental complaints must go beyond counting allegations. Across 19 studies, patients described four connected areas of concern: access, communication and attitudes, clinical treatment, and ethical or professional conduct.

AI-enabled qualitative research can help dental researchers and healthcare quality teams organize large complaint datasets, compare patient segments, locate supporting evidence, and identify patterns for human review. Evidano supports this workflow with thematic, content, frequency, and cross-segment analysis across documents and spreadsheets.

For teams ready to turn patient narratives into structured, reviewable insight, Try Evidano for free.