ArticleBritish dental journal2022
The in-practice prevention programme: an example of flexible commissioning from Yorkshire and the Humber.
Article in British dental journal, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction An In-Practice Prevention (IPP) programme was developed by the Local Dental Network in the North Yorkshire and the Humber area in England in response to an oral health needs assessment. The underpinning logic model drew on a flexible commissioning approach and aimed to incentivise dental teams with NHS contracts to promote the delivery of prevention. This used care pathways that involved the whole dental team and was cost-neutral.Aim The programme was evaluated using realist methodology to identify 'what works, in which circumstances, how and for who?'.Design Realist evaluations are explanatory in nature and attempt to understand the factors that appear to influence the success (or not) of an intervention, rather than demonstrating causality.Methods and results Following a review of the pertinent literature, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, five theory areas were considered to be critical to the delivery of IPP. In order of stated priority, these were: 1) clinical leadership; 2) 'skill mix'; 3) financial incentives; 4) institutional logic/practice culture; and 5) behaviour change.Conclusion The results appear to show that clinically-led programmes could offer value to dental commissioners within a flexible commissioning model, although this would need to be further tested using an experiment design.
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.