Background Medical professionals have access to a broad range of resources to address clinical information needs. While much attention is given to new sources of data such as those available on the internet, it is less clear how clinicians choose between peer-reviewed research literature and other publication-based sources. This analysis distinguishes between possible drivers of publication type preference (namely, practice setting, advanced training, professional development experiences). Dentists enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) are the population for this study. Theories of human and intellectual capital and institutional logics theory are used to understand how advanced training and other clinical experiences may explain the choices that dentists make when faced with clinical questions. Methods An online questionnaire was implemented with general dentists in the US National Dental PBRN. A series of logistic and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were used to explain the use of peer-reviewed and other publications. Measures of knowledge-based human capital distinctions (advanced clinical training and research engagement, advanced professional status, personal motivation for professional advancement) were used to explain preferences for research literature as a clinical resource. Results General dentists with advanced training, as well as those with a skill advancement motivation, show a preference for peer-reviewed materials. General dentists who have been practicing longer tend to favor other dental publications, preferring those sources as a resource when faced with clinical challenges. Human capital and professional motivation distinguish the information preferences among general dentists. Further, these factors explain more variance in use of peer-reviewed materials than practice setting does. Few differences by demographic groups were evident. Conclusions Results point to a distinct variation in the general dentistry professional community. Advanced training among general dentists, as well as the types of procedures typically conducted in their practice, distinguishes their information preferences from other general dentists, including those with more years of clinical experience.
The primary aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that a patient’s subjective assessments of the dentist’s technical competence, quality of care, and anticipated restoration longevity during a restorative visit are predictive of restoration outcome. This prospective cohort study involved 3,326 patients who received treatment for a defective restoration in a permanent tooth, participated in a baseline patient satisfaction survey, and returned for follow-up. Of the 4,400 restorations that were examined by 150 dentists, 266 (6%) received additional treatment after baseline. Reporting satisfaction with the technical skill of the dentist or quality of the dental work at baseline was not associated with retreatment after baseline. However, patients’ views at baseline that the fee was reasonable (odds ratio [OR], 1.6) was associated with retreatment after baseline, whereas satisfaction at baseline with how long the filling would last (OR, 0.6) was associated with less retreatment. These findings suggest that retreatment occurs more often for patients who at baseline are satisfied with the cost or who at baseline have less confidence in the restoration. The authors found no associations between restoration retreatment and the patients’ baseline evaluations of the technical skills of their dentists or perceptions of quality care. Knowledge Transfer Statement Dental patients’ ratings of their dentist’s skills were not related to a restoration needing retreatment. Patients focus on other aspects of the dental visit when making this judgment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.