Tim J Heaven1, Valeria V Gordan2, Mark S Litaker3, Jeffrey L Fellows4, D Brad Rindal5, Gregg H Gilbert3. 1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Restorative Sciences, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA. Electronic address: theaven@uab.edu. 2. University of Florida, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, Room D9-6, P.O. Box 100415, Gainesville, FL 32610-0415, USA. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227, USA. 5. HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, 8170 33rd Avenue South, Mail Stop 21111R, PO Box 1524, Bloomington, MN 55440-1524, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the agreement between treatment recommended during hypothetical clinical scenarios and actual treatment provided in comparable clinical circumstances. METHODS: A total of 193 practitioners in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in both a questionnaire and a clinical study. The questionnaire included three hypothetical scenarios about treatment of existing restorations. Clinicians then participated in a clinical study about repair or replacement of existing restorations. We quantified the overall concordance between their questionnaire responses and what they did in actual clinical treatment. RESULTS: Practitioners who recommended repair (instead of replacement) of more scenario restorations also had higher repair percentages in clinical practice. Additionally, for each of the three hypothetical scenario restorations, practitioners who recommended repair had higher repair percentages in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire scenarios were a valid measure of clinicians' tendency to repair or replace restorations in actual clinical practice. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although there was substantial variation in practitioners' tendency to repair or replace restorations, responses to questionnaire scenarios by individual practitioners were concordant with what they did in actual clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the agreement between treatment recommended during hypothetical clinical scenarios and actual treatment provided in comparable clinical circumstances. METHODS: A total of 193 practitioners in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network participated in both a questionnaire and a clinical study. The questionnaire included three hypothetical scenarios about treatment of existing restorations. Clinicians then participated in a clinical study about repair or replacement of existing restorations. We quantified the overall concordance between their questionnaire responses and what they did in actual clinical treatment. RESULTS: Practitioners who recommended repair (instead of replacement) of more scenario restorations also had higher repair percentages in clinical practice. Additionally, for each of the three hypothetical scenario restorations, practitioners who recommended repair had higher repair percentages in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire scenarios were a valid measure of clinicians' tendency to repair or replace restorations in actual clinical practice. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although there was substantial variation in practitioners' tendency to repair or replace restorations, responses to questionnaire scenarios by individual practitioners were concordant with what they did in actual clinical practice.
Authors: James C Setcos; Reza Khosravi; Nairn H F Wilson; Chiayi Shen; Mark Yang; Ivar A Mjör Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Stéphanie Tubert-Jeannin; Sophie Doméjean-Orliaguet; Paul J Riordan; Ivar Espelid; Anne B Tveit Journal: J Dent Educ Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Jenna L McCauley; Stephanie Reyes; Cyril Meyerowitz; Valeria V Gordan; D Brad Rindal; Gregg H Gilbert; Renata S Leite; Roger B Fillingim; Kathleen T Brady Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Jenna L McCauley; Renata S Leite; Valeria V Gordan; Roger B Fillingim; Gregg H Gilbert; Cyril Meyerowitz; David Cochran; D Brad Rindal; Kathleen T Brady Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Kimberley R Isett; Simone Rosenblum; Julie Ann Barna; Diana Hicks; Gregg H Gilbert; Julia Melkers Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Jenna L McCauley; Joni D Nelson; Gregg H Gilbert; Valeria Gordan; Scott H Durand; Rahma Mungia; Cyril Meyerowitz; Renata S Leite; Roger B Fillingim; Kathleen T Brady Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Mark S Litaker; Dorota T Kopycka-Kedzierawski; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Marc W Heft; Cyril Meyerowitz; Sidney Chonowski; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 2.757