ArticleBritish dental journal2019
Conceptualising a framework for improving quality in primary dental care.
Article in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Literature Review of Quality Management Initiatives in Dental Clinics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Feasibility assessment of integrated oral health care pathways designed for pediatric and adult patients referred to School of Dentistry.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evidence-Informed Oral Health Policy Making: Opportunities and Challenges.Journal of dental research · 2023Review
- Successes and challenges towards improving quality of primary health care services: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Unlocking the potential of NHS primary care dental datasets.British dental journal · 2022Review
- Planning the oral health workforce: Time for innovation.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper sets out a conceptual framework by which quality improvement in primary dental care can be approached. We argue that seeking a unified definition for quality in dentistry is a distraction to the more important end of quality improvement. An approach to quality improvement that interfaces Donabedian's domains of structure, process and outcome with various dimensions of quality gives a rational approach by which quality can be assessed and improved. The importance of valid, evidence driven indicators and methods for their implementation in primary dental care is described. Further work is required in order to identify which dimensions of dentistry are most important, but the Institute of Medicine's dimensions of safety, effectiveness, patient centreedness, timeliness, equity, efficiency are a good starting point. Trying to develop an absolute list of dimensions of quality should not distract from implementing an approach-based paradigm of quality improvement. Bioinformatics offers new solutions by which quality measures may be implemented and reported in the primary care setting. The focus of future research should be in implementing data-driven quality indicators at the level of the primary care practitioner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31758120What 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.