ArticleBritish dental journal2015
Direct access in the UK: what do dentists really think?
Article in British dental journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring dental professionals' perceptions of resilience to dental environment stress: a qualitative study.British dental journal · 2025Article
- The perceptions and attitudes of qualified dental therapists towards a diagnostic role in the provision of paediatric dental care.British dental journal · 2022Article
- Collaborative leadership with a focus on stakeholder identification and engagement and ethical leadership: a dental perspective.British dental journal · 2021Article
- A whole-team approach to optimising general dental practice teamwork: development of the Skills Optimisation Self-Evaluation Toolkit (SOSET).British dental journal · 2020Article
- Direct access: how is it working?British dental journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2015
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate dentists' views on the likely impact of direct access (DA), the clinical competence of hygienists and therapists to work autonomously and possible predictors of such views.
designRandom survey of registered dentists.
settingUK, 2014. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA random sample of UK-based dentists registered with the General Dental Council (GDC). A unique-access online questionnaire was developed, with a paper alternative. Email and postal reminders were sent.
main outcome measuresMeasures of positive/negative views regarding the impact of DA and clinical competence of hygienists and therapists to work without a dentist's prescription.
resultsOne hundred and fifty-nine responded (response rate: 27%), 78 (49.1%) of whom were female. No significant sources of response bias were identified. While 122 (77%) had not undergone joint training with dental hygienists or therapists at the undergraduate level, 98 (62.4%) currently worked with a hygienist and 33 (21.0%) with a therapist. Eighty-three (53.2%) disagreed with the GDC decision regarding DA for hygienists, and 94 (59.1%) felt the same regarding therapists. Concern was greatest in respect to diagnosis, treatment planning and restorations. Comments were predominantly negative and reflected concerns over patient safety, what was seen as hygienists' and therapists' inadequate training or expertise, the undermining of the dentist's role, service delivery, the reform being poorly planned, implemented or being a cost-cutting exercise. Experience of teamwork was not predictive of positive/negative views.
conclusionsResponse was low, thus posing a potential threat to the study's representativeness. Many dentists had concerns and reservations about DA which were unrelated to teamwork experience. The dissemination of information on curricula and scope of practice may help allay such concerns, as may a greater emphasis on joint training at both the undergraduate level and within continuing professional development programmes.
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.