ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Opportunities for Epidemiological Data Collection in Dental Practices: A Thematic Analysis of Dutch Dentists' Views.
Article in International dental journal, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimsEpidemiological oral health data are essential for informing public health policy and evaluating care. In the Netherlands, OrangeForce and the Oral Health Monitor seek to resume data collection by extracting information from dental practices using both automated (ie, software-based extraction) and manual (ie, user-entered in web-based forms) methods. As the success of these methods depends on cooperation from providers, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of Dutch dentists on collecting oral health data from practices, focussing on automated and manual data collection.
methodsThirteen dentists were individually interviewed between May-December 2024 using a predefined topic list. The initial three participants were purposively sampled; others were approached to ensure variation in background characteristics. The interviews were thematically analysed using Atlas.ti.
resultsThe dentists - assisted by a dental assistant - recorded most data directly during check-ups. Recorded data varied considerably in both content and method of documentation. Although the dentists generally supported data collection, they noted that more consistent and structured recording would be required for automated methods. Manual collection was perceived as time-consuming, although clear instructions could mitigate this. Eventually, the decision to participate in manual data collection largely depended on the required workload and time investment. Benchmark feedback could serve as a key incentive but is informative only with sufficiently large samples per dentist.
conclusionsDutch dentists widely acknowledged the importance of epidemiological oral health data collection but identified several practical challenges. Currently, manual data collection via web-based forms seems more feasible than automated registration, which requires technical improvements and workflow changes. Clear instructions and the involvement of oral care providers in the development of the data collection procedures are necessary to improve data quality and manage research burden. Further advancement of dental software systems is needed to facilitate structured data collection in the future.
Indexed as
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.