Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39988975›Full record

ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2026

Quality Improvement in General Dental Practice: Situational Analysis for the United Kingdom and Germany.

C Lin, V Fehrer, L O'Malley, W Thompson, S Listl, M Lorenz, M Byrne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JDR clinical and translational research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

C LinDivision of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0302-6535
V FehrerSection for Oral Health, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8782-6467
L O'MalleyDivision of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
W ThompsonDivision of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
S ListlSection for Oral Health, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8176-3397
M LorenzSection for Oral Health, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-7738-8624
M ByrneDivision of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionQuality improvement (QI) is important in ensuring standards in oral health care. Despite the growing literature on quality indicators, audit, and feedback, the perceptions and expectations of oral health professionals toward QI remain unclear. Understanding these perspectives, barriers, and facilitators is important to effectively encourage and maintain QI activities in dental practices. This is the first of 6 publications in a series titled "Situational Analysis of QI in Oral Health Care in Europe."

aimThis study aimed to investigate how QI was conducted and perceived in dental practices in the United Kingdom and Germany.

methodsA situational analysis, comprising desk research and semistructured interviews, was conducted. Data collection was conducted from May to October 2023. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit dental practice participants in the United Kingdom and Germany. Interviews and key texts were thematically analyzed to synthesize 3 maps: a situational map, a social world map, and a positional map.

resultsEighteen participants were interviewed, comprising dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, dental nurses, and practice managers. The participants described 6 competing positions surrounding QI: QI activities were expressed as being worthwhile or box-ticking exercises to satisfy regulators. Some felt that QI detracted from service delivery and should not be the role of the dentist, whereas others stressed the need for a whole-team approach. Some felt that patients were important to judge quality, whereas others felt quality in dentistry required understanding of technical processes beyond the reach of patients.

conclusionThis study provided insights into how QI activities were carried out in dental practices in the United Kingdom and Germany and how it is was perceived by those working in this environment. This study offers key observations into the situations, social worlds and arenas, and positions that influence QI in dental practices.Knowledge Transfer Statement:The findings from this study highlight several contextual barriers and facilitators to quality improvement in general dental practice. Understanding these determinants of quality improvement is relevant for oral health teams and dental practice managers who aim to develop and implement quality improvement strategies in dental practice.

Indexed as

General Practice, DentalQuality ImprovementAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGermanyHumansMaleQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomdental caredental care teamoral healthqualitative researchquality indicatorsquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID39988975
PMCPMC12634894

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.