Elizabeth Mertz1, Cynthia Wides1, Alexis Cooke1, Paul E Gates2,3. 1. Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, Center for the Health Professions, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Department of Dentistry, Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, Bronx, NY, USA. 3. Dr. Martin L. King Jr. Health Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper are to describe sources of data on underrepresented minority (URM) dental providers and to perform a structured critique of primary survey research on African American (AA), Hispanic/Latino (HL), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) dentists. METHODS: A national sample survey was conducted between October 2012 and March 2013, and secondary datasets were assessed for comparability. The survey used 21 sampling frames, with censuses of AI/AN and nonurban dentists, and assessed demographics, education, practice history, patient population, volunteerism, experiences with discrimination, and opinions on issues in dentistry. The survey was developed with constituent input, pilot-tested, and distributed online and through US mail with three reminder postcards, phone, and email follow-up. Continuing education credit and entry to a prize drawing were provided for participation. RESULTS: Existing data sources cannot answer critical research questions about URM dentists. Using best practices, the survey received a 34 percent adjusted response rate. Selection likelihood and measurable response bias were adjusted for using base and poststratification weights. CONCLUSIONS: The survey design was consistent with best practices, and our response analytics provide high confidence that the survey produced data representative of the URM dentist population. Enhanced study design, content, and response rates of existing survey efforts would be needed to provide a more robust body of knowledge on URM providers, perspectives, and practices.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this paper are to describe sources of data on underrepresented minority (URM) dental providers and to perform a structured critique of primary survey research on African American (AA), Hispanic/Latino (HL), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) dentists. METHODS: A national sample survey was conducted between October 2012 and March 2013, and secondary datasets were assessed for comparability. The survey used 21 sampling frames, with censuses of AI/AN and nonurban dentists, and assessed demographics, education, practice history, patient population, volunteerism, experiences with discrimination, and opinions on issues in dentistry. The survey was developed with constituent input, pilot-tested, and distributed online and through US mail with three reminder postcards, phone, and email follow-up. Continuing education credit and entry to a prize drawing were provided for participation. RESULTS: Existing data sources cannot answer critical research questions about URM dentists. Using best practices, the survey received a 34 percent adjusted response rate. Selection likelihood and measurable response bias were adjusted for using base and poststratification weights. CONCLUSIONS: The survey design was consistent with best practices, and our response analytics provide high confidence that the survey produced data representative of the URM dentist population. Enhanced study design, content, and response rates of existing survey efforts would be needed to provide a more robust body of knowledge on URM providers, perspectives, and practices.
Authors: David E Hayes-Bautista; Mariam Iya Kahramanian; Erin G Richardson; Paul Hsu; Lucette Sosa; Cristina Gamboa; Robert M Stein Journal: J Dent Educ Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Liz Glidewell; Ruth Thomas; Graeme MacLennan; Debbie Bonetti; Marie Johnston; Martin P Eccles; Richard Edlin; Nigel B Pitts; Jan Clarkson; Nick Steen; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Elizabeth A Mertz; Cynthia D Wides; Aubri M Kottek; Jean Marie Calvo; Paul E Gates Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.301