Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533017›Full record

ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2020

An International Working Definition for Quality of Oral Healthcare.

A J Righolt, M F Walji, J S Feine, D M Williams, E Kalenderian, S Listl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JDR clinical and translational research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A Systematic Literature Review of Quality Management Initiatives in Dental Clinics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Planning the oral health workforce: Time for innovation.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2021
    Article
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

6 authors.

A J RigholtRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry - Quality and Safety of Oral Healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0170-8679
M F WaljiCenter for Oral Healthcare Quality and Safety, School of Dentistry, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
J S FeineDivision of Oral Health and Society, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
D M WilliamsInstitute of Dentistry, Bart's and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
E KalenderianDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
S ListlRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry - Quality and Safety of Oral Healthcare, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess and improve the quality of oral healthcare, we must first agree on what constitutes good care. Currently there is no internationally accepted definition for quality of oral healthcare. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to establish a working definition for quality of oral healthcare that would help to advance further improvements in the field of quality improvement in oral healthcare. The development of the working definition included a 3-step approach: 1) literature screening; 2) expert-based compilation of an initial list of topics, leaning on the National Academy of Medicine framework for quality of care; and 3) a World Café with voting, which took place during the annual general meeting of the International Association for Dental Research in 2018. Following this approach, the collective intelligence of involved participants yielded a comprehensive list of items, prioritized by relevance. The resulting working definition comprises 7 domains—patient safety, effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, equitability, timeliness, access to care—and 30 items, which together characterize quality of oral healthcare. This aspirational working definition provides the potential to facilitate further conversations and activities aiming at quality improvement in oral healthcare. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: This special communication describes the development of a working definition for quality of oral healthcare. The findings of this study are intended to raise awareness of the relevance of quality improvement initiatives in oral healthcare. The working definition described here has the potential to facilitate further conversations and activities aiming at quality improvement in oral healthcare.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareQuality ImprovementCommunicationHumansaccess to carehealth policyoral healthpublic health dentistryquality improvementquality of healthcare

Identifiers

PMID31533017
PMCPMC7079288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.