Improving oral healthcare: towards measurement?

Baâdoudi, Fatiha; Maskrey, Neal; Listl, Stefan; Heijden, Geert J. M. G. van der; Duijster, Denise

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.813

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an increasing demand for information about oral health outcomes, not least due to rising awareness about the importance of good oral health for health and well‐being …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients' self‐reported measures of oral health—A validation study on basis of oral health questions used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the validity of patient self‐reported oral health measures as used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+. Background Information on people's oral health status is important for assessing oral health needs within populations. However, clinical examination is not always possible. Patient self‐reported measures may provide an alternative when time and other resources are scarce. Materials and methods Using oral health items from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), self‐reported measures were collected from 186 patients receiving treatment at Heidelberg University Hospital. Self‐reports were compared with subsequent clinical examinations. Analyses were conducted for patients of all age groups and separately for patients aged 50+ (analogous to the SHARE study population). Diagnostic accuracy, agreement and correlation of patient‐reported information were examined using descriptive statistics and Bland‐Altman plots. Results Patient‐reported presence or absence of a full tooth count was closely related to clinical measurement, both for all age groups (sensitivity: 93%; specificity: 92%) and persons aged 50+ (sensitivity: 100% specificity: 94%). Bland‐Altman plots indicate good agreement between patient‐ and clinical reports of the number of teeth at age 50+ (Concordance Correlation Coefficient = 0.95). Discriminatory power of patient‐reporting was good regarding presence vs absence of artificial teeth, but less robust regarding partial vs full replacement of missing teeth. Conclusion Patient self‐evaluations provide reasonable estimates of clinical measures and appear sufficiently accurate for examining variations in the number of teeth, including among populations aged 50+. However, patient reports of the extent of replacement of missing teeth may not constitute reliable reflections of clinical conditions.

show abstract

“…There is an increasing demand for information about oral health outcomes, not least due to rising awareness about the importance of good oral health for health and well‐being …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patients' self‐reported measures of oral health—A validation study on basis of oral health questions used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparative oral health care data may illustrate where further development of care is needed and whether it aligns with the best evidence. Various initiatives for measuring oral health care quality and its determinants have recently been emerging, highlighting room for improvement with respect to the establishment of comprehensive quality measures in dental care …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various initiatives for measuring oral health care quality and its determinants have recently been emerging, highlighting room for improvement with respect to the establishment of comprehensive quality measures in dental care. [11][12][13] The minimum prerequisite for a quality measure is that it is based on scientific evidence, accepted by experts in the field and measured using reliable data sources. 14 A reliable measure should be free of measurement errors.…”

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

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

“…Academic detailing; oral healthcare; dentistry; evidence based care; prevention; patient-centred care; intrinsic motivation Background Historically, the delivery of oral care has focussed largely on the treatment of acute diseases and malformations of the teeth, gums and oral cavity [1]. Whilst excellent restorative outcomes remain a cornerstone of professional dental practice, new quality of care challenges has emerged.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, evidence for the comparative effectiveness of many contemporary preventive and restorative interventions is limited [2][3][4]. Second, meeting the needs and expectations of patients on their oral healthcare have become key features of care quality [1]. Communication and empathy, easy access to care and participation in decision making, including self-care support, influence how patients perceive care quality [5].…”

mentioning

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

Improving oral healthcare: towards measurement?

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Patients' self‐reported measures of oral health—A validation study on basis of oral health questions used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+

Patients' self‐reported measures of oral health—A validation study on basis of oral health questions used in a large multi‐country survey for populations aged 50+

Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About