A Consensus-Based Set of Measures for Oral Health Care

Baâdoudi, Fatiha; Trescher, Anna-Lena; Duijster, Denise; Maskrey, Neal; Gabel, Frank; Heijden, Geert J. M. G. van der; Listl, Stefan

doi:10.1177/0022034517702331

Cited by 20 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, most Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) and Patient‐Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) that were found in this systematic review stem from Europe, whereas for the United States, there were more population‐level measures, measures assessing disease outcomes, and measures related to oral treatment and preventive services. Compared to Europe, the publications from the United States developed more measures for the use in electronic health records (EHRs) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…[1][2][3][4] Robust and comprehensive measures that collect routine data on the processes and outcomes of oral care health care may contribute to a more transparent, evidence-informed and person-centred care system. 5 These measures need to be transparent and should reflect health processes, outcomes, person/patient perception and costs that are associated with oral health care. 6,7 Measuring the quality of oral care using valid and reliable measures may enable various stakeholders, such as policymakers and dentists, to evaluate and improve the quality of care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review

Righolt

Sidorenkov

Faggion

et al. 2018

Comm Dent Oral Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This systematic review aimed to (a) provide an overview of existing quality measures in the field of oral health care, and to (b) evaluate the scientific soundness and applicability of these quality measures. Methods A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via OVID) and LILACS (via BIREME). The search was restricted to articles published between 2002 and 2018. Publications reporting on the development process or clinimetric properties of oral health care quality measures for outpatient oral health care in dental practices were included. The identified publications reporting on oral health care quality measures were critically appraised with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation 2.0 (AIRE 2.0) instrument to evaluate the soundness and applicability of the measures. Results The search strategy resulted in 2541 unique and potentially relevant articles. In total, 24 publications were included yielding 215 quality measures. The critical appraisal showed a large variation in the quality of the included publications (AIRE scores ranging from 38 to 78 out of 80 possible points). The majority of measures (n = 71) referred to treatment and preventive services. Comparably, few measures referred to the domain patient safety (n = 3). The development process of measures often exhibited a lack of involvement of patients and dental professionals. Few projects reported on the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 3) of the measures. Four projects piloted the measures for implementation in practice. Conclusions This systematic review provides an overview of the status quo with respect to existing quality measures in oral health care. Potential opportunities include the piloting and testing of quality measures and the establishment of suitable information systems that allow the provision of transparent routine feedback on the quality of oral health care.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review

Righolt

Sidorenkov

Faggion

et al. 2018

Comm Dent Oral Epid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The acquisition of claims data as part of the overall ADVOCATE project has been described elsewhere [28,29]. An earlier study, using an extensive four-stage approach, which has been conducted as part of the ADVOCATE project, has defined measures that are considered relevant, important and useful for feedback information by oral healthcare stakeholders [30] (Supplementary Appendix 1). These measures will be used to compromise the patient self-reported online questionnaire.…”

Section: Feedback Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving oral healthcare using academic detailing – design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies

Baâdoudi

Duijster

Maskrey

et al. 2019

Acta Odontologica Scandinavica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Academic detailing (AD) is a defined form of educational outreach that can be deployed to intrinsically motivate practitioners towards improving quality of care. This paper describes the design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies. This proof of concept study aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and usefulness of AD, reinforced with feedback information to promote prevention-oriented, patient-centred and evidence-based oral healthcare delivery by general dental practitioners (GDPs). Methods: Six groups of GDPs will be recruited; two groups of six to eight GDPs in each of three countriesthe Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. GDPs will meet for four Academic Detailing Group (ADG) meetings for open discussions using comparative feedback data to stimulate debate about their dental practice performance and care delivery. Group meetings will be moderated using the AD methodology. Qualitative data will be collected through focus group interviews, an online discussion forum, field notes and debriefs of ADG meetings and analysed by conventional content analysis using MaxQDA software. Discussion: The results of the study will provide novel information on the feasibility, perceived acceptability and usefulness of AD and feedback data for GDPs to improve oral healthcare delivery.

show abstract

“…While the development process of most of these published measures has been comprehensive, only 4 studies reported on the additional scientific properties of the measures (e.g., validity, reliability) or tested the utility of measures in practice ( Herndon, Crall, et al 2015 ; Bhardwaj et al 2016 ; Hummel et al 2017 ; Neumann et al 2017 ). Robust measures that can be applied to routinely collected data would contribute to a more transparent, evidence-informed, and patient-centered oral health care system ( Baâdoudi et al 2017 ). The issue now may not be a lack of measures but rather the limited evidence that the measures developed so far have been explicitly demonstrated to be fit for purpose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usage and Scientific Properties of the ADVOCATE Oral Health Care Measures

Baâdoudi

Maskrey

Listl

et al. 2020

JDR Clinical & Translational Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Feedback information about the quality of oral health care is important for reflective learning by oral health care professionals and the wider health system. To this end, a list of 48 topics describing oral health and oral health care was recently agreed as part of the EU H2020 ADVOCATE project. Objective: This article reports on the formulation of measures based on the ADVOCATE topics and provides information on usage, reporting, validity, and reliability of the measures. Methods: The AIRE instrument was used to guide the methodological approach adopted. The appropriateness of the measures was tested among 39 general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands. Data were collected from a convenience sample of patients via a questionnaire deployed in an online application in their practice. Feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the measures were evaluated through focus group interviews with GDPs. Face validity and test-retest reliability of the measures were assessed. Results: For 46 of the 48 topics, a measure could be defined by constructing a definition and a numerator and denominator. Data collection for all 46 measures was feasible and acceptable for patients using the online questionnaire. The practicalities of using claims data for the purpose of giving feedback to individual and groups of GDPs proved to be challenging in terms of timely access of such data, the granularity of the data, and matching the content of the data with the consented items on quality of oral health care. Face validity was considered appropriate, as the patients found the questionnaire easy to understand. Test-retest reliability was found to be acceptable for 36 of 46 measures. Conclusion: The broad range of the ADVOCATE oral health care measures could make a useful contribution to a more transparent, evidence-based, and patient-centered oral health care system. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study shows the usage, reliability, and validity of 46 oral health care measures. The measures, which include patient experience and health behaviors, were found to be useful to stimulate discussions about clinical practice. The measures can provide essential information for quality improvement strategies and useful and relevant feedback information for GDPs.

show abstract

A Consensus-Based Set of Measures for Oral Health Care

Cited by 20 publications

References 28 publications

Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review

Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review

Improving oral healthcare using academic detailing – design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies

Usage and Scientific Properties of the ADVOCATE Oral Health Care Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About