Improving oral healthcare using academic detailing – design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies

Baâdoudi, Fatiha; Duijster, Denise; Maskrey, Neal; Ali, Fatima M.; Listl, Stefan; Whelton, Helen; Heijden, Geert J. M. G. van der

doi:10.1080/00016357.2019.1582797

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ADVOCATE oral health care measures were used in the ADVOCATE project to provide feedback data intended to stimulate reflection and group discussions about clinical practice with the intention of intrinsically motivating dentists toward improving quality of care or reducing unwarranted variation ( Baâdoudi et al 2019 ). These measures have the potential to be useful in the development of health policies aimed at improving the quality of health care and to routinely describe the care delivered by health systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The online application contained a consent page before the participants were presented with the questions. The questionnaire is available in an earlier publication ( Baâdoudi et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The full list of definitions, numerators, and denominators of measures is reported in the Appendix . A description of the numerators and denominators was published as part of the additional information of the ADVOCATE Field Studies protocol ( Baâdoudi et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The measures were tested among 39 GDPs in Denmark ( n = 17), Germany ( n = 12), and the Netherlands ( n = 10) as part of the ADVOCATE project. In this study, academic detailing (a defined form of educational outreach) and feedback data were used to stimulate discussions among groups of GDPs and, where appropriate, to initiate changes in clinical practice ( Baâdoudi et al 2019 ). Patient-reported data were collected in the GDPs’ dental practices from a convenience sample of patients using the online application on a tablet.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the last meetings, a semistructured focus group interview was conducted in each group of GDPs to evaluate the entire ADVOCATE approach. The methodology, data management, analysis, and interpretation of focus group interviews are described in the ADVOCATE design paper ( Baâdoudi et al 2019 ). Codes and themes relating to the usage and interpretation of data derived from the measures were extracted with conventional content analysis ( Hsieh and Shannon 2005 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Usage and Scientific Properties of the ADVOCATE Oral Health Care Measures

Baâdoudi

Maskrey

Listl

et al. 2020

JDR Clinical & Translational Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Feedback information about the quality of oral health care is important for reflective learning by oral health care professionals and the wider health system. To this end, a list of 48 topics describing oral health and oral health care was recently agreed as part of the EU H2020 ADVOCATE project. Objective: This article reports on the formulation of measures based on the ADVOCATE topics and provides information on usage, reporting, validity, and reliability of the measures. Methods: The AIRE instrument was used to guide the methodological approach adopted. The appropriateness of the measures was tested among 39 general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands. Data were collected from a convenience sample of patients via a questionnaire deployed in an online application in their practice. Feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the measures were evaluated through focus group interviews with GDPs. Face validity and test-retest reliability of the measures were assessed. Results: For 46 of the 48 topics, a measure could be defined by constructing a definition and a numerator and denominator. Data collection for all 46 measures was feasible and acceptable for patients using the online questionnaire. The practicalities of using claims data for the purpose of giving feedback to individual and groups of GDPs proved to be challenging in terms of timely access of such data, the granularity of the data, and matching the content of the data with the consented items on quality of oral health care. Face validity was considered appropriate, as the patients found the questionnaire easy to understand. Test-retest reliability was found to be acceptable for 36 of 46 measures. Conclusion: The broad range of the ADVOCATE oral health care measures could make a useful contribution to a more transparent, evidence-based, and patient-centered oral health care system. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study shows the usage, reliability, and validity of 46 oral health care measures. The measures, which include patient experience and health behaviors, were found to be useful to stimulate discussions about clinical practice. The measures can provide essential information for quality improvement strategies and useful and relevant feedback information for GDPs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations