RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network are offered online and mail options for most questionnaire studies. We sought to quantify differences a) in characteristics of dentists who completed a questionnaire online as compared with those who completed a mail option offered to online nonresponders and b) in prevalence estimates for certain practice characteristics. METHODS: Invitation letters to participants provided an identification number and log-in code with which to complete the online survey. Nonrespondents received a reminder letter after the fourth week, and after an additional 4-week period, a final reminder was sent, along with a paper questionnaire version, allowing completion online or by paper. RESULTS: Of 632 US dentists who completed the survey, 84 (13 percent) used the paper version. Completion by paper was more common among males, older dentists, and those in general practice (P<0.05). The proportions of dentists who used electronic dental records, who consistently used a rubber dam when performing root canals, and who either worked with or employed expanded-function auxiliaries were lower among dentists who completed the survey using the paper-mail version than among those who completed it online; these differences remained significant in models adjusted for gender, age, and practice type. CONCLUSION: Even in an era of increasingly electronic communication by dentists, not including a paper option when conducting surveys can result in overestimation of the prevalence of key dental practice characteristics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Following a successful 2005-2012 phase with three regional practice-based research networks (PBRNs), a single, unified national network called "The National Dental PBRN" was created in 2012 in the United States to improve oral health by conducting practice-based research and serving dental professionals through education and collegiality. METHODS: Central administration is based in Alabama. Regional centres are based in Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, New York and Texas, with a Coordinating Centre in Maryland. Ideas for studies are prioritized by the Executive Committee, comprised mostly of full-time clinicians. RESULTS: To date, 2763 persons have enrolled, from all six network regions; enrollment continues to expand. They represent a broad range of practitioners, practice types, and patient populations. Practitioners are actively improving every step of the research process, from idea generation, to study development, field testing, data collection, and presentation and publication. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners from diverse settings are partnering with fellow practitioners and academics to improve clinical practice and meet the needs of clinicians and their patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This "nation's network" aims to serve as a precious national resource to improve the scientific basis for clinical decision-making and foster movement of the latest evidence into routine practice.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Clinical researchers have attempted many methods to translate scientific evidence into routine clinical practice, with varying success. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide an important, practitioner-friendly venue to test these methods. Dentist practitioner-investigators from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) completed a detailed questionnaire about how they diagnose and treat dental caries. Next, they received a customized report that compared their answers to those from all other practitioner-investigators. Then, 126 of them attended the DPBRN's first network-wide meeting of practitioner-investigators from all five of its regions. During that meeting, certain questions were repeated and new ones were asked about the dentist's intention to change the way that he or she diagnosed or treated dental caries. Less than one-third of practitioner-investigators intended to change how they diagnosed or treated caries as a result of receiving the customized report. However, as a result of the meeting, the majority of these same practitioner-investigators stated an intention to change toward a more conservative, less surgically invasive approach. These findings are consistent with the idea that a highly interactive meeting with fellow practitioner-investigators may be an effective means to translate scientific findings into clinical practice. Practitioner-investigators are open to changing how they treat patients as a result of engaging fellow practitioner-investigators in the scientific process.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)