Establishing the research agenda for oral healthcare using the Dialogue Model-patient involvement in a joint research agenda with practitioners.

Engagement of patients in the composition of a research agenda is essential to reduce the gap between research and practice and thereby generate more impact. The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda for oral health. Experienced challenges and needs with oral health(care) of practitioners and patients formed the input for the research agenda. We describe the identification of research priorities of patients and the integration of these with previously identified research priorities of practitioners, using a participatory multi-phase approach for research agenda setting (Dialogue Model). Via focus group discussions, 32 research topics were generated. Next, 1495 patients prioritized these topics in an online survey. In a dialogue meeting, a joint research agenda of eight research topics was agreed upon. Many topics were contributed by patients, but were prioritized by both stakeholder groups. The most important topics concerned behavior change and the relation between general and oral health. Other topics that were prioritized covered affordability and accessibility as well as health system research and organizational issues. By considering different perspectives, this research agenda has uncovered directions for future research that go beyond evident research topics, as many topics are currently underrepresented in oral healthcare research.

A research agenda on oral health care as a boundary object that unites the perspectives of patients and practitioners.

CONTEXT: A research agenda for oral health care was established in the Netherlands using the Dialogue Model. This project served as a case study in which we applied boundary-work theory as a framework to understand boundaries (ie demarcations) between and within groups, and how these boundaries can be overcome. OBJECTIVE: To gain insights into the boundaries encountered when setting a research agenda, we analysed how this agenda served as a boundary object (ie circumstances, situations or material that connect actor groups and allow boundary crossing) that facilitated crossing boundaries and uniting the perspectives of patients and practitioners. METHODS: We used a thematic approach to analyse researchers' observations, meeting materials, emails, interviews with patients (n = 11) and a survey among patients and practitioners (n = 18). RESULTS: Setting the research agenda helped to cross boundaries in oral health care, which demonstrates its role as a boundary object. First, this made it possible to integrate research topics representing the perspectives and priorities of all patients and also to unite those perspectives. It was essential to involve practitioners at an early stage of the project so that they could better accept the patients' perspectives. This resulted in support for an integrated research agenda, which facilitated the crossing of boundaries. CONCLUSIONS: The research agenda-setting project was found to serve as a boundary object in uniting the perspectives and priorities of patients and practitioners. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patient involvement in this case study was structured in the process of research agenda setting using the Dialogue Model.

Research priorities for oral healthcare: agenda setting from the practitioners' perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda based on the most important information needs concerning the effects and outcomes of oral healthcare provided by oral healthcare professionals (OHPs). METHODS: A two-stage survey study was used to identify and prioritise topics for future research. The first survey generated topics based on information needs by OHPs. Topics were clustered thematically and overlapping topics were merged in 84 research themes. In the second survey, respondents selected their top 5 from the 84 research themes. Themes were sorted by the rank number based on rank sum. RESULTS: In the first survey, 937 topics were suggested. Almost half (n = 430, 46%) were identified as topics related to endodontology, cariology, oral medicine/surgery or tooth restoration. Topics were grouped in 84 research themes, covering 10 research domains. These were prioritised by 235 OHPs. Behaviour change for oral health and oral healthcare for geriatric patients ranked as most important. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation of OHPs has resulted in a research agenda, which can be used to inform programming future oral health research. The highest prioritised research themes have an interdisciplinary nature, mainly concern oral disease prevention and are under-represented in the current oral healthcare research portfolio.

Evidence and consequences of academic drift in the field of dental research: A bibliometric analysis 2000-2015.

The mission of academic excellence has resulted in a science system that incentivises publications within high impact, often basic science journals, and less in application-oriented journals. For the dental research field this so-called academic drift can result in a research portfolio that moves away from research that serves dental healthcare. Therefore, we examined if and how academic drift has changed the dental research field. Web of Science data were used to develop a network map for dental research containing journal clusters that show similar citation behavior. From the year 2000 up to 2015, we explored the intensity of knowledge exchange between the different clusters through citation relations. Next, we analyzed changes in research focus of dental research institutes in seven countries, in dental research, clinical medicine research, basic science, public health research and other fields. Within the citation network, 85.5% of all references in dental journals concern references to other dental journals. The knowledge contribution of non-dental research fields to dental research was limited during the studied period. At the same time, the share of output of dental research institutes in dental research has declined. The research activity of the dental research institutes increased mainly in basic science while the knowledge input from basic science into dental research did not increase. Our findings suggest that the dental research portfolio is influenced by academic drift. This academic drift has increased the disbalance towards basic science, and presents a challenge for the scientific progress in dental healthcare services.