Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30023454›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2018

Presenting information on dental risk: PREFER study protocol for a randomised controlled trial involving patients receiving a dental check-up.

Rebecca Harris, Christopher Vernazza, Louise Laverty, Victoria Lowers, Stephen Brown, Girvan Burnside, Laura Ternent, Susan Higham, Jimmy Steele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rebecca HarrisDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Christopher VernazzaSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Louise LavertyDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Victoria LowersDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Stephen BrownDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Laura TernentInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Susan HighamDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Jimmy SteeleSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CS-2014-14-011Department of Health HS&DR/13/33/45
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA new dental contract being tested in England places patients into traffic light categories according to risk (Red = High risk). This reflects health policy which emphasises patients' shared responsibility for their health, and a growing expectation that clinicians discuss health risk in consultations. Alongside this, there are technological developments such as scans and photographs which have generated new, vivid imagery which may be used to communicate risk information to patients. However, there is little evidence as to whether the form in which risk information is given is important.

methodsThe PREFER study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm, patient-level randomised controlled trial, based in four NHS dental practices, from which 400 high/medium risk patients will be recruited. The study compares three ways of communicating risk information at dental check-ups: 1) verbal only (usual care); 2) a Traffic Light graphic with verbal explanation; 3) a Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF) photograph showing, for example, patches of red fluorescence where dental plaque has been present for two days or more (with a verbal explanation). The study assesses patient preferences using the economic preference-based valuation methodology Willingness-to-Pay (WTP). Any changes in oral self-care (for example in tooth-brushing), will be measured by self-report, and clinical outcome data collected by clinicians and extracted from QLF photographs. Predictors and moderators of any behaviour change will be explored using demographic characteristics and psychological variables from the Extended Parallel Process Model. A cost-benefit framework will explore the financial implications for NHS dentistry of the three risk presentation methods.

Indexed as

Behaviour changeClinical communicationHealth educationOral healthRisk

Identifiers

PMID30023454
PMCPMC6022252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.