ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2015
Training and fairer payments would increase caries prevention in practice.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesPubMed, Embase, PsycoInfo, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science, BBO, Lilacs and York databases supplemented by Google scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Qualitative studies with findings derived from individual or group interviews and structured questionnaires reporting factors that drove dentists towards or away from incorporating caries preventive measures were considered. Two reviewers conducted selection independently. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and a qualitative metasummary carried out. This involves the extraction, grouping and formatting of findings and the calculation of frequency and intensity effect sizes in order to provide mixed research syntheses and to conduct a posteriori analyses of the relationship between reports and findings.
resultsSeven qualitative studies and 41 surveys (36,501 participants) were included. The reports were grouped together into six categories that were judged to be topically similar; education and training, personal beliefs, work conditions, remuneration, gender, place of residence and patients. Biologicism (27%), low remuneration (25%), length of time since graduation (22%) and male dentists (19%) were found to be the highest frequency effect size driving dentists away from using preventive approaches, and team work (21%), post-graduation (12%) and professional understanding of the benefits (12%) were identified as the main reasons for dentists' adherence to preventive measures.
conclusionsDespite the questionable quality of the included reports the evidence that emerged seems to indicate that further education and training coupled with a fairer pay scheme would be a reasonable approach to change the balance in favour of the provision of dental caries preventive measures by dentists. The results of this review could be of value in the planning and decision-making processes aimed at encouraging changes in professional dental practice that could result in the improvement of the oral health care provided to the population in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25909928What 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.