ArticleBMC oral health2014
Effectiveness of a quality management program in dental care practices.
Article in BMC oral health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Literature Review of Quality Management Initiatives in Dental Clinics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Dutch oral health care quality measures: a modified Delphi study.International dental journal · 2020Pooled it
- How to prioritise in quality improvement? Targeted implementation as a key for quality improvement in Kenyan health facilities.BMJ open quality · 2020Article
- Questionnaire for measuring organisational attributes in dental-care practices: psychometric properties and test-retest reliability.International dental journal · 2016Article
- Does a quality management system improve quality in primary care practices in Switzerland? A longitudinal study.BMJ open · 2015Article
- What do patients take into account when they choose their dentist? Implications for quality improvement.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructured quality management is an important aspect for improving patient dental care outcomes, but reliable evidence to validate effects is lacking. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of a quality management program in primary dental care settings in Germany.
methodsThis was an exploratory study with a before-after-design. 45 dental care practices that had completed the European Practice Assessment (EPA) accreditation scheme twice (intervention group) were selected for the study. The mean interval between the before and after assessment was 36 months. The comparison group comprised of 56 dental practices that had undergone their first assessment simultaneously with follow-up assessment in the intervention group. Aggregated scores for five EPA domains: 'infrastructure', 'information', 'finance', 'quality and safety' and 'people' were calculated.
resultsIn the intervention group, small non-significant improvements were found in the EPA domains. At follow-up, the intervention group had higher scores on EPA domains as compared with the comparison group (range of differences was 4.2 to 10.8 across domains). These differences were all significant in regression analyses, which controlled for relevant dental practice characteristics.
conclusionsDental care practices that implemented a quality management program had better organizational quality in contrast to a comparison group. This may reflect both improvements in the intervention group and a selection effect of dental practices volunteering for the first round of EPA practice assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.