Design Case series.

Introduction: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research is an essential component of high-quality research. Patients and the public can identify which research topics are most relevant to them, contribute to study design, and interpretation and dissemination of findings. While inclusion of PPIE is widely adopted in medical research, awareness within the dental research community is more limited. Aim: To examine patient and public involvement and engagement in orthodontic research activity. Design: Identification and appraisal of use of PPIE in orthodontic research reporting and funding applications using a systematic approach. Methods: Three sources of information were examined: (1) research articles published between September 2018 and September 2019 in four major orthodontic journals. Articles were examined for reported PPIE; (2) common funding bodies for orthodontic research were assessed to establish whether PPIE was mandated (National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Health and Care Research Wales, British Orthodontic Society Foundation, Royal College of Surgeons and CLEFT); and (3) publication guidance for authors in these journals was examined to identify whether reporting of PPIE was included. Results: Of the 363 research articles, 2 (0.6%) mention patient/public involvement. None of the 363 research articles mention patient/public engagement. Of nine funding bodies, 2 (22%) request evidence of patient/public involvement as a condition of receiving funding with one (11%) expecting evidence of public engagement to be provided as a condition of receiving funding. None of the four major orthodontic journals include patient/public involvement and/or engagement in their guidance for authors. Conclusion: There is currently: (1) a notable lack of reporting of PPIE in orthodontic research; (2) variability in the requirements of funding bodies for researchers to include PPIE in funding applications and throughout the research process; and (3) no stipulation in journals’ instructions for authors.

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of interventions that aim to increase patient involvement in treatment decisions in orthodontic, orthognathic and cleft treatment, based on patient-reported outcomes and patient knowledge. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: OVID databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM reviews), CENTRAL, WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and reference lists of included studies. Data selection: Studies were selected by two reviewers independently and in duplicate based on pre-defined eligibility criteria: Population: People considering or undergoing orthodontic, orthognathic or cleft treatment. Intervention: Any intervention that aims to increase patient involvement in decision-making. Outcomes: Patient-reported outcomes and patient knowledge. Studies: All experimental studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019 were eligible. Data extraction: Standardised data extraction of study information and assessment of risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions. Data synthesis: 13 randomised controlled trials were included. Due to heterogeneity in the studies, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. The majority (n=11) of studies involved orthodontic patients, with one study of cleft patients and one study of orthognathic and orthodontic patients. Six included studies reported significant differences between intervention and control groups with improved patient knowledge or better patient-reported outcomes. Conclusions: A variety of different interventions and outcome measures were used making data synthesis challenging. There is some evidence that interventions to increase patient involvement in decision-making can improve patient-reported outcomes and patient knowledge.

Academic DCT posts We currently work as DCT3s in Restorative Dentistry (Post 1) and Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology (Post 2) at the Leeds Dental Institute. As part of these posts, we have one day a week of protected time to develop our academic skills. Of the 77 DCT3 posts available in 2019, only two included specific academic duties within their roles. 1 We actively sought these posts when applying for DCT3, since the nature of DCT rotations and national recruitment make it very difficult to sustain an active role embedded within a large research project. Given the significant academic activity included in specialty training, as well as the drive to increase research undertaken in primary care, 2,3 we believe an increase in the number of academic DCT posts would benefit postgraduate trainees and the future wider workforce.

No abstract