ArticleHealth science reports2026
Establishing Reporting Requirements for Decision-Makers: A Cross-Sectional Study From a Public Dental Service in New South Wales, Australia.
Article in Health science reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Public dental organizations require effective and evidence-based support for clinical and business decision-making. A pilot business intelligence system has been proposed for a public dental service in New South Wales, Australia, to aid with this decision-making. To inform the design and development of this system, we aim to identify the key performance indicators and report features perceived to be the most valuable to the dental service decision-makers. Method: A self-administered survey employing best-worst scaling with balanced incomplete block designs was sent to all eligible decision-makers in a Local Health District public dental service in New South Wales, Australia. Participants ranked seven areas of information and five report features. Quantitative rankings were complemented with free-text comments. Results: Nine of the possible 12 participants (75%) completed the survey. The results reported "Patient demand" as the most important area of information for inclusion in the business intelligence system, with "patient demographics" ranked the lowest. For report features, the most important features were reported to be "readability" and "level of detail". All participants reported that they were expected to use computerized reports as part of their role, with four (44%) participants reporting accessing computerized reports more than 100 times in their previous 30 working days. Conclusion: The novel pilot study applies best-worst scaling for prioritizing key performance indicators among public dental decision-makers at a Local Health District within New South Wales and underscores the established role of computerized reports in decision-making processes. These findings will directly guide the design and implementation of a pilot business intelligence reporting system, aiming to enhance data accessibility and accelerate evidence-based decisions within a public dental service to ultimately enhance service efficiency. Future evaluation will be needed to assess the adoption rates of this system and its impact on operational efficiency and patient care outcomes.
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.