Caries classification and management in the context of the CariesCare International (CCI™) consensus:a clinical case study

The objective of this clinical case study is to illustrate the caries management four-step structured process, leading to personalised interventions specifc for each individual patient’s risks and needs, according to CariesCare International, derived from the International Caries Classifcation and Management System (ICCMS) for clinical practice. An 18-year-old female was diagnosed with higher caries risk at the individual level, and with several caries lesions at different severity stages, some likely active and others likely inactive. A care plan was co-created with the patient and delivered to obtain optimal health outcomes. Several issues pertinent to patient-centred care are discussed, including caries management at the individual and the tooth surface level, the preservation of tooth structure, patient’s caries risk management, and prevention and control of caries lesions. The patient’s perspective is taken into account and the health outcome focus of the system is highlighted

Do incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response rates in postal questionnaires?:Two randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional response rates to postal questionnaires are declining and this may threaten the validity and generalisability of their findings. Methods to improve response rates do incur costs (resources) and increase the cost of research projects. The aim of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess whether 1) incentives, 2) type of reminder and/or 3) reduced response burden improve response rates; and to assess the cost implications of such additional effective interventions. METHODS: Two RCTs were conducted. In RCT A general dental practitioners (dentists) in Scotland were randomised to receive either an incentive; an abridged questionnaire or a full length questionnaire. In RCT B non-responders to a postal questionnaire sent to general medical practitioners (GPs) in the UK were firstly randomised to receive a second full length questionnaire as a reminder or a postcard reminder. Continued non-responders from RCT B were then randomised within their first randomisation to receive a third full length or an abridged questionnaire reminder. The cost-effectiveness of interventions that effectively increased response rates was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: There was no evidence that an incentive (52% versus 43%, Risk Difference (RD) -8.8 (95%CI −22.5, 4.8); or abridged questionnaire (46% versus 43%, RD −2.9 (95%CI −16.5, 10.7); statistically significantly improved dentist response rates compared to a full length questionnaire in RCT A. In RCT B there was no evidence that a full questionnaire reminder statistically significantly improved response rates compared to a postcard reminder (10.4% versus 7.3%, RD 3 (95%CI −0.1, 6.8). At a second reminder stage, GPs sent the abridged questionnaire responded more often (14.8% versus 7.2%, RD −7.7 (95%CI −12.8, -2.6). GPs who received a postcard reminder followed by an abridged questionnaire were most likely to respond (19.8% versus 6.3%, RD 8.1%, and 9.1% for full/postcard/full, three full or full/full/abridged questionnaire respectively). An abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy for increasing the response rate (£15.99 per response). CONCLUSIONS: When expecting or facing a low response rate to postal questionnaires, researchers should carefully identify the most efficient way to boost their response rate. In these studies, an abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy. An increase in response rates may be explained by a combination of the number and type of contacts. Increasing the sampling frame may be more cost-effective than interventions to prompt non-responders. However, this may not strengthen the validity and generalisability of the survey findings and affect the representativeness of the sample

Development of a Core Curriculum Framework in Cariology for U.S. Dental Schools

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153683/1/jddj002203372016806tb06133x.pd

INTERVAL (investigation of NICE technologies for enabling risk-variable-adjusted-length) dental recalls trial: a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the best dental recall interval for optimum, cost-effective maintenance of oral health in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Background Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group’s systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care. Methods This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life. Discussion INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice

Explaining clinical behaviors using multiple theoretical models

PMID: 23075284 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3500222 Free PMC ArticlePeer reviewedPublisher PD

A primary care Web-based Intervention Modeling Experiment replicated behavior changes seen in earlier paper-based experiment

OBJECTIVES: Intervention Modeling Experiments (IMEs) are a way of developing and testing behavior change interventions before a trial. We aimed to test this methodology in a Web-based IME that replicated the trial component of an earlier, paper-based IME. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Three-arm, Web-based randomized evaluation of two interventions (persuasive communication and action plan) and a "no intervention" comparator. The interventions were designed to reduce the number of antibiotic prescriptions in the management of uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to complete an online questionnaire and eight clinical scenarios where an antibiotic might be considered. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine GPs completed the questionnaire. GPs receiving the persuasive communication did not prescribe an antibiotic in 0.70 more scenarios (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-1.24) than those in the control arm. For the action plan, GPs did not prescribe an antibiotic in 0.63 (95% CI = 0.11-1.15) more scenarios than those in the control arm. Unlike the earlier IME, behavioral intention was unaffected by the interventions; this may be due to a smaller sample size than intended. CONCLUSIONS: A Web-based IME largely replicated the findings of an earlier paper-based study, providing some grounds for confidence in the IME methodology

IQuaD dental trial; improving the quality of dentistry : a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing oral hygiene advice and periodontal instrumentation for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Gastroesophageal reflux GWAS identifies risk loci that also associate with subsequent severe esophageal diseases

Funder: The Swedish Esophageal Cancer Study was funded by grants (R01 CA57947-03) from the National Cancer Institute he California Tobacco Related Research Program (3RT-0122; and; 10RT-0251) Marit Peterson Fund for Melanoma Research. CIDR is supported by contract HHSN268200782096CAbstract: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is caused by gastric acid entering the esophagus. GERD has high prevalence and is the major risk factor for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA). We conduct a large GERD GWAS meta-analysis (80,265 cases, 305,011 controls), identifying 25 independent genome-wide significant loci for GERD. Several of the implicated genes are existing or putative drug targets. Loci discovery is greatest with a broad GERD definition (including cases defined by self-report or medication data). Further, 91% of the GERD risk-increasing alleles also increase BE and/or EA risk, greatly expanding gene discovery for these traits. Our results map genes for GERD and related traits and uncover potential new drug targets for these conditions