Use of clinical practice guidelines by dentists: findings from the Japanese dental practice-based research network

Canadian Registered Dietitians' Utilization of the 2018 Diabetes Canada Nutrition Therapy Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Cross-sectional Study

OBJECTIVES

Our aim in this work was to ascertain Canadian registered dietitians' (RDs) use of the 2018 Diabetes Canada nutrition therapy (NT) recommendations and to identify the degree of agreement with facilitator-to-use statements.

METHODS

A national 28-item anonymous cross-sectional survey of RDs who counsel people with diabetes was conducted.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty RDs responded to the survey, but some questions had fewer responses. Mean age of respondents was 36.8±10.1 years and 51.3% were certified diabetes educators (CDEs). Energy/macronutrient recommendations used most were regular timing/spacing of meals (85%), 30 to 50 g/day dietary fibre intake (71%), and maintaining a low glycemic index (65%). Mediterranean and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary patterns had similar utilization rates as macronutrient distribution ranges, at 50% to 60%. Specific food recommendations were used most often, with the emphasis on fruits/vegetables and whole grains at 92% and 86%, respectively. Of the special considerations for people on insulin, regular meals/meal spacing was the recommendation used most often (88%). The statements "I trust the content …" and "I understand the scientific basis …" of the NT chapter were the internal facilitators most agreed with, at 86% each. The least agreed upon external facilitators were "my workplace encourages me to use the NT chapter," at 54%, and "I learned about the NT chapter in my formal education," at 44%. CDEs had significantly higher agreement on 12 of the 21 facilitator statements compared with non-CDEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Canadian RDs are utilizing the NT guidelines, including the new dietary patterns. Simple, easy-to-implement recommendations, such as specific foods and timing/spacing of meals, were used most frequently. Opportunities for increased use could include encouraging dietetic training programs and worksites to promote utilization of CPGs in practice.

Causes of the Evidence-practice Gap and Its Association with the Effects of Minimal Intervention Dentistry Education to Clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To identify causes of the evidence-practice gap (EPG) in dentistry in Japan and analyze whether these causes are associated with: (a) improvement of EPG in minimal intervention dentistry (MID) following an educational intervention and (b) specific dentist characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods questionnaire survey among 197 Japanese dentists that integrated both quantitative and qualitative data. Causative factors for the EPG identified in the quantitative survey were clarified by qualitative analysis. We measured the EPG in a baseline survey using an EPG measurement tool based on MID. To examine how feedback using the latest scientific evidence affected change in the EPG, we measured the EPG again immediately after feedback was provided to participating dentists.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis classified all dentists into one of four "EPG cause" groups, namely "evidence-", "dentist-", "patient-", and "health insurance system-related" causes. Quantitative analysis confirmed that improvement in the EPG following the feedback intervention was indeed associated with group classification. The highest concordance was found for the "evidence-related" group while the lowest concordance was in the "dentist-related" group (p=0.004). Concordance improved after evidence feedback in all groups but was lowest in the "dentist-related" group. More dentists reported practice busyness in the "dentist-related" group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we identified four groups of causes of EPG among Japanese dentists. The degree of concordance between evidence and clinical practice was the lowest in the "dentist-related" group, and the results of this study are expected to provide useful information for the development of intervention methods for closing the EPG in the future.

Dentists' attitudes and practices toward evidence-based dentistry: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Considering that attitudes toward evidence-based dentistry (EBD) may predict implementation behaviors, the objective of this systematic review was to synthesize and evaluate the existing evidence related to dentists' attitudes and practices toward EBD.

METHODS

We included primary studies that collected information from interviews, questionnaires, or conversation sessions with dentists. The following sources were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, in addition to gray literature. The included studies were appraised according to the assessment tools recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute for qualitative and quantitative observational studies. Descriptive data were collected in standardized tables and descriptively synthesized.

RESULTS

The selection process resulted in 36 included studies. Dentists share positive opinions about EBD and predominantly report willingness to learn or adopt these practices. Despite high methodological risks and significant heterogeneity, the results collected in this review indicated that scientific journals, clinical practice guidelines, and trusted colleagues are generally perceived as influential and useful by dentists, who highly consulted these information sources.

CONCLUSION

Despite supportive reported attitudes toward EBD, very low certainty exists about actual EBD-related practices.

USE OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE BY DENTISTS

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To investigate how dentists use evidence-based medicine in clinical practice. Objectives: to determine how dentists understand the role of evidence-based medicine to ensure the quality of dental care; what sources of evidence are used; what are the barriers to the use of evidence and the possibility of removing it.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: Methods of semi-structured in-depth interview, thematic analysis, graphic, generalization were used. Materials: records of respondents' answers.

RESULTS

Results: Dentists have identified the benefits of evidence: a positive treatment outcome; protection against doctor's mistakes; safety of dental interventions, maintaining the level of professional knowledge. Dentists use online evidence resources, training materials, advertising of medical devices and filling materials. Barriers to the use of evidence-based medicine are the lack of sectoral clinical protocols, lack of personal time and low English proficiency, according to dentists. Not all evidence-based medicines and medical devices are approved for use in Ukraine. Removing barriers will ensure more active use of evidence in dental practice.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Dentists are aware of the role of evidence-based medicine in ensuring the quality of dental care, know the sources of evidence. Barriers are the lack of national clinical protocols, their incomplete provision of resources, the lack of dentists' own time and the low level of English language proficiency. The results of the study can be used in the formation of sectoral and local policies for the standardization of health care and continuing education of dentists.

Barriers involved in the application of evidence-based dentistry principles: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The authors' objective in this systematic review was to investigate the barriers involved in the application of evidence-based dentistry principles, as reported by dentists. The authors registered the protocol in the PROSPERO database.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

Eligible studies included qualitative and quantitative approaches, constituting information about barriers, collected through interviews, questionnaires, or conversation sessions. The authors searched databases and reference lists of preselected studies. After the selection process, the authors evaluated the included studies for potential risk of bias and collected either qualitative or quantitative data.

RESULTS

After the selection process, the authors included 35 studies, of which 16 were reported in this article. The authors synthesized and classified the barriers in 4 categories: self-related, evidence-related, context-related, and patient-related barriers. Shortage of time and financial constraints were the barriers most frequently studied. However, the quantification of these barriers, as well as others, was not possible because of the variability of the results and methodological issues of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors suggest the development of valid questionnaires and their use in representative samples to quantify the effects of specific barriers. The authors encourage practitioners to participate in educational programs focused on training in evidence-based dentistry abilities, in addition to seeking accessible and synthesized formats of reliable scientific knowledge.