Prescription Drug Abuse Among Patients in Rural Dental Practices Reported by Members of the National Dental PBRN.

PURPOSE: This study compared rural to nonrural dentists with respect to opioid prescribing practices, perceptions about prescription drug abuse among patients, and training relevant to pain management and addictions. METHODS: A web-based, cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to practicing dentist members of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN; N = 822) and linked with network enrollment questionnaire data regarding practitioner demographics and practice characteristics. Pain management prescribing practices and perceptions regarding relevance and scope of addiction and drug diversion among patients were assessed. Rural practice was defined as a practice whose ZIP Code has more than 50% of its population in either a nonmetropolitan county and/or a rural Census tract. FINDINGS: Rural dentists were significantly more likely than their nonrural counterparts to recommend nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents/acetaminophen in combination with prescribing an opioid [F (1,820) = 4.59, P = .03]. Compared to nonrural dentists, rural dentists were more likely to report that opioid abuse/diversion was a problem in their practices [χ2 [1, n = 807] = 6.85, P < .001], were more likely to have suspected a patient of abuse or diversion [χ2 [1, n = 807] = 10.12, P = .001], and were more likely to have refrained from prescribing due to suspicions of abuse or diversion [χ2 [1, n = 807] = 12.49, P < .001]. CONCLUSION: Rural dentists may be disproportionately impacted by patients' opioid abuse and represent a viable target for educational outreach that encourages screening, identification, and referral of patients in need of drug abuse treatment.

Multifactorial assessment of measurement errors affecting intraoral quantitative sensory testing reliability.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (AIMS): Measurement error of intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been assessed using traditional methods for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Most studies reporting QST reliability focused on assessing one source of measurement error at a time, e.g., inter- or intra-examiner (test-retest) reliabilities and employed two examiners to test inter-examiner reliability. The present study used a complex design with multiple examiners with the aim of assessing the reliability of intraoral QST taking account of multiple sources of error simultaneously. METHODS: Four examiners of varied experience assessed 12 healthy participants in two visits separated by 48h. Seven QST procedures to determine sensory thresholds were used: cold detection (CDT), warmth detection (WDT), cold pain (CPT), heat pain (HPT), mechanical detection (MDT), mechanical pain (MPT) and pressure pain (PPT). Mixed linear models were used to estimate variance components for reliability assessment; dependability coefficients were used to simulate alternative test scenarios. RESULTS: Most intraoral QST variability arose from differences between participants (8.8-30.5%), differences between visits within participant (4.6-52.8%), and error (13.3-28.3%). For QST procedures other than CDT and MDT, increasing the number of visits with a single examiner performing the procedures would lead to improved dependability (dependability coefficient ranges: single visit, four examiners=0.12-0.54; four visits, single examiner=0.27-0.68). A wide range of reliabilities for QST procedures, as measured by ICCs, was noted for inter- (0.39-0.80) and intra-examiner (0.10-0.62) variation. CONCLUSION: Reliability of sensory testing can be better assessed by measuring multiple sources of error simultaneously instead of focusing on one source at a time. In experimental settings, large numbers of participants are needed to obtain accurate estimates of treatment effects based on QST measurements. This is different from clinical use, where variation between persons (the person main effect) is not a concern because clinical measurements are done on a single person. IMPLICATIONS: Future studies assessing sensory testing reliability in both clinical and experimental settings would benefit from routinely measuring multiple sources of error. The methods and results of this study can be used by clinical researchers to improve assessment of measurement error related to intraoral sensory testing. This should lead to improved resource allocation when designing studies that use intraoral quantitative sensory testing in clinical and experimental settings.