Recruitment strategies and retention rates for five National Dental PBRN studies.

Background: We describe a retrospective assessment of practitioner and patient recruitment strategies, patient retention strategies, and rates for five clinical studies conducted in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network between 2012 and 2019, and practitioner and patient characteristics associated with retention. Methods: Similar recruitment strategies were adopted in the studies. The characteristics of the practitioners and patients are described. The proportion of patients who either attended a follow-up (FU) assessment or completed an online assessment was calculated. For studies with multiple FU visits or questionnaire assessments, rates for completing each FU were calculated, as were the rates for completing any and for completing all FU assessments. The associations of practitioner and patient characteristics with all clinic FU visits, and with the completion of all assessments for a study were ascertained. Results: Overall, 591 practitioners and 12,159 patients were included. FU rates by patients for any assessment varied from 91% to 96.5%, and rates for participating in all assessments ranged from 68% to 87%. The mean total number of patients each practitioner recruited was 21 (sd = 15); the mean number per study was 13 (sd = 7). For practitioners, practice type and patient enrollment were associated with greater clinic retention, while only race was associated with their patients completing post-visit online assessments. For patients, age was associated with clinic retention, while female gender, age, race, and education were all associated with greater completion of post-visit online assessments. Conclusion: The Network efficiently recruited practitioners and patients and achieved high patient retention rates for the five studies.

Examining the Association Between Social Needs and Care Gap Closure Among Older Adults Receiving Dental Care.

Introduction: The authors of this study sought to (1) describe the prevalence of social needs and (2) determine whether social needs were associated with closure of care gaps among patients aged ≥65 years seeking dental care. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, the authors identified 754 Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients aged ≥65 years who completed an index dental visit; had at least 1 of 23 preventive care gaps (e.g., flu vaccination) or disease management care gaps (e.g., diabetes HbA1c screening test) documented in their medical record; and had completed a social needs assessment through survey evaluating financial strain, food insecurity, housing needs, social isolation, and transportation needs. The authors described the prevalence of social needs at the index visit and then used logistic regression to evaluate the association between the number of social needs (0, 1, ≥2) and closure of all care gaps over the following 60 days (yes versus no), adjusting for patient characteristics. Identification and closure of care gap were assessed through Kaiser Permanente Northwest's Panel Support Tool. Results: Approximately 28% of patients reported ≥1 social needs. The prevalence of social needs was as follows: social isolation, 13.7%; financial strain, 11.3%; food insecurity, 7.7%; transportation needs, 5.4%; and housing needs, 3.3%. Those with 1 social need were more likely to close care gaps than those with no social needs (OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.17, 2.85). No significant association was found with care gap closure among those with ≥2 versus zero social needs. Conclusions: The prevalence of social needs was nearly 30% among patients aged ≥65 years with dental and medical coverage. Patients with 1 social need were more likely than those with no social needs to close all care gaps after their visit.

Utilizing deliberative engagement for identifying implementation strategy priorities: lessons learned from an online deliberative forum with dental professionals.

BACKGROUND: Selecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. We are drawing on data collected during the DISGO study to reflect on barriers we encountered in implementing a deliberative engagement process for discussing implementation strategies relevant to the evidence-based guideline targeted in this intervention. The goal is to identify factors that may influence the success of deliberative engagement as a technique to involve healthcare staff in identifying priorities for implementation strategies. METHODS: We drew on online chat transcripts from the deliberative engagement forums collected during the DISGO study. The chat transcripts were automatically generated for each discussion and captured the written exchanges between participants and moderators in all participating dental clinics. Chat transcripts were analyzed following a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Our findings revealed barriers to the successful implementation of deliberative engagement in the context of the DISGO study. Participants were not familiar with the materials that had been prepared for the forum and lacked familiarity with the topic of deliberation. Participants also did not share divergent viewpoints and reinforced existing ideas rather than introducing new ideas. CONCLUSIONS: In order to ensure that obstacles that were encountered in this study are not repeated, it is important to carefully consider how staff can effectively be prepared for the deliberations. Participants must be familiar with the content of the guideline, and most questions about the content and evidence should be answered before the deliberative engagement sessions. If perspectives among staff on a guideline are homogenous, briefing materials should introduce perspectives that complement existing views among staff. It is also necessary to create an environment in which staff are comfortable introducing opinions that may not be held by the majority of colleagues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730 .

Sharing voice during deliberative engagement to improve guideline adherence in dental clinics: findings from a qualitative evaluation of an online deliberative forum discussion.

OBJECTIVES: Selecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. For this research project, an online deliberative forum brought together staff from dental clinics to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of implementation strategies and barriers to implementation of a component of a dental (pit-and-fissure) guideline. The goal was to determine whether deliberative engagement enabled participants' sharing of promotive and prohibitive voice about implementation strategies to promote guideline-concordant care. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of online chat transcripts of facilitated deliberations from 31 small group sessions. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente Dental (KP Dental) in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: All staff from 16 dental offices. RESULTS: The directed content analysis revealed that participants shared prohibitive and promotive voice when offering critique of the barriers and the implementation strategies suggested by the researchers. The analysis also revealed that the focus of the deliberations often was not on the aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline intended by the research team for deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The deliberative forum discussions were a productive venue to ask staff in dental clinics to share their perspectives on strategies to promote guideline-concordant care as well as barriers. Participants demonstrated prohibitive voice and engaged critically with the materials the research team had put together. An important limitation of the deliberation was that the discussion often centred around an aspect of the pit-and-fissure guideline that already was implemented well. To ensure a deliberation oriented towards resolving challenging aspects of the pit-and-fissure guideline, greater familiarity with the guideline would have been important, as well as more intimate knowledge of the current discrepancies in guideline-concordant care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 18 December 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

Testing a Deliberative Democracy Engagement Intervention to Increase Guideline-Concordance Among Oral Health Providers: Results from the DISGO Cluster-Randomized, Stepped-Wedge Trial.

Background: Dental caries affects billions worldwide and in the U.S. is among the most prevalent noncommunicable diseases in both children and adults. Early in the caries process, it can be arrested by dental sealants, which are non-invasive and thus tooth sparing, however, few dentists have adopted this approach. Deliberative engagement processes enable participants to engage with diverse perspectives on a policy issue and develop and share with policy makers informed opinions about the policy issue. We examined the effects of a deliberative engagement process on the ability of oral health providers to endorse implementation interventions and to apply dental sealants. Methods: Using a stepped wedge design, 16 dental clinics were cluster randomized, and 680 providers and staff were exposed to a deliberative engagement process that included an introductory session, workbook, facilitated small group deliberative forum, and post-forum survey. Forum participants were assigned to forums to ensure diverse role representation. Mechanisms of action examined included sharing voice and diversity of opinion. Three months after each clinic's forum, the clinic manager was interviewed about implementation interventions deployed. There were 98 clinic-months in the non-intervention period and 101 clinic-months in the intervention period. Results: Compared with providers and staff in small clinics, providers and staff in medium and large clinics more strongly agreed that their clinic should adopt two of the three proposed implementation interventions targeting the first barrier and one of the two proposed implementation interventions targeting the second barrier. Compared with the non-intervention period, in the intervention period providers did not place more sealants on occlusal non-cavitated carious lesions. Survey respondents reported sharing both promotive and prohibitive voice. From the beginning to the end of the forums, most forum participants did not change their opinions about the possible implementation interventions. At the end of the forums, there was no significant within-group variability in implementation interventions endorsed. Conclusions: Deliberative engagement intervention may help clinic leadership identify implementation interventions when there is a challenging problem, a network of semi-autonomous clinics, and autonomous providers within those clinics. It remains to be determined whether there is a range of perspectives within clinics. Trial Registration: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Introduction: Following inception in 2005 as a multiregional practice-based research network (PBRN), the "National Dental PBRN" expanded nationwide in 2012, and in 2019 implemented additional organizational changes. The objectives are to: (1) describe the new structure and function of the network; and (2) quantify its scientific productivity since 2005. Methods: A national Administrative and Resource Center is based in Alabama; regional and specialty nodes are based in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Texas. A Network Coordinating Center is based in Oregon. Studies are funded via investigator-initiated grants. Scientific productivity is assessed using specific metrics, including the Relative Citation Ratio. Results: To date, 58 studies have been completed or are in data collection or development. These studies have investigated a broad range of topics using a wide variety of study designs. Of the studies that have completed enrollment, 70,665 patients were enrolled, as were 19,827 practitioners (some participated in multiple studies), plus electronic records for 790,493 patients in two data-only studies. To date, these studies have led to 193 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 62 different journals. The mean (1.40) Relative Citation Ratio of Network publications connotes a greater-than-average influence in their fields. Conclusions: These metrics demonstrate that the PBRN research context can successfully engage practitioners and patients from diverse settings nationally with a high and sustained level of scientific productivity. This infrastructure has enabled clinical scientists in oral health and nonoral health topics and provided additional recruitment venues outside of the typical academic health center research context.

Dental providers' perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of implementing vaccine administration programs in dental settings: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Involving dental offices in routine vaccinations could have a positive impact on public health. In this study, we assessed dental providers' attitudes and perceptions regarding implementing vaccination in dental settings. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with 31 dental providers (25 dentists and 6 dental hygienists) enrolled in the Western region of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network as of June 28, 2021. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We analyzed transcripts using deductive and inductive coding approaches. RESULTS: We identified three main themes that captured the perceptions of dental practitioners regarding the feasibility of implementing vaccine administration in a dental setting: (1) dental practitioners perceive contributing to the public health mission of disease prevention as having high value, (2) dental practitioners face considerable complexity when deciding whether to implement vaccine administration, and (3) dental practitioners do not understand current laws and associated reimbursement models related to vaccine administration. CONCLUSIONS: To make vaccination commonplace in dental practices, legal changes to allow dental practitioners to administer vaccines should be followed by concrete guidance and relevant trainings to help interested dental practitioners successfully implement vaccination programs in their clinical settings.

Oral Health in America: Implications for dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Important, but insufficient, gains have been achieved in access to and delivery of oral health care since the 2000 US surgeon general's report on oral health in America. Access to care has increased for children and young adults, but considerable work remains to meet the oral health care needs of all people equitably. The National Institutes of Health report, Oral Health in America: Advances and Challenges, reviews the state of the US oral health care system, achievements made since 2000, and remaining challenges. In this article, the authors highlight key advances and continuing challenges regarding oral health status, access to care and the delivery system, integration of oral and systemic health, financing of oral health care, and the oral health workforce. RESULTS: Public insurance coverage has increased since 2000 but remains limited for many low-income, minority, and older adult populations. The oral health care workforce has expanded to include new dental specialties and allied professional models, increasing access to health promotion and preventive services. Practice gains made by women and Asian Americans have not extended to other minority demographic groups. Oral health integration models are improving access to and delivery of patient-centered care for some vulnerable populations. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Coordinated policies and additional resources are needed to further improve access to care, develop dental insurance programs that reduce out-of-pocket costs to lower-income adults, and improve the integration of oral and medical health care delivery targeting a common set of patient-centered outcomes. Dental care professionals need to fully participate in meaningful and system-wide change to meet the needs of the population equitably.

Applying a scoping review approach for identifying effective implementation strategies in oral health settings.

Dental service providers have limited capacity to identify strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We developed a rigorous yet parsimonious scoping review approach to identify, select, and rate implementation strategies based on an oral health system context. From 153 strategies identified, we selected the top 11 strategies, which had a moderate level of support of evidence and where managers were the main actors. The main actions were to educate, remind, structure, and influence. Targets included dentists, dental hygienists, and assistants and managers from a large prepaid dental care delivery system. This approach responds to calls for rapid and innovative methods to implement EBPs in oral health.

Study protocol: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial of the effectiveness of a deliberative loop in identifying implementation strategies for the adoption of a dental sealant guideline in dental clinics.

BACKGROUND: The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends dental providers apply dental sealants to the occlusal surfaces of permanent molars for the prevention or treatment of non-cavitated dental caries. Despite the evidence-based support for this guideline, adherence among general dentists is low, ranging from less than 5 to 38.5%. Thus, an evidence-to-practice gap exists, and it is unclear which implementation strategies would best support providers in adopting and implementing the evidence-based practice. One potential approach to selecting and tailoring implementation strategies is a deliberative loop process, a stakeholder-engaged approach to decision-making. This trial aims to test the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of using a deliberative loop intervention with stakeholders (i.e., providers and staff) to enable managers to select implementation strategies that facilitate the adoption of an evidence-based dental practice. METHODS: Sixteen dental clinics within Kaiser Permanente Northwest Dental will be cluster randomized to determine the timing of receiving the intervention in this stepped-wedge trial. In the three-part deliberative loop intervention, clinic stakeholders engage in the following activities: (1) receive background information, (2) participate in facilitated small-group discussions designed to promote learning from each other's lived experiences and develop informed opinions about effective clinic-level implementation strategies, and (3) share their informed opinions with clinic leaders, who may then choose to select and deploy implementation strategies based on the stakeholders' informed opinions. The primary outcome of Reach will be defined as patient-level receipt of guideline-concordant care. Secondary outcomes will include the cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of the deliberative loop process. Implementation strategies deployed will be catalogued over time. DISCUSSION: These results will establish the extent to which the deliberative loop process can help leaders select and tailor implementation strategies with the goal of improving guideline-concordant dental care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730.

Interexaminer Agreement in the Radiologic Identification of Apical Periodontitis/Rarefying Osteitis in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network PREDICT Endodontic Study.

INTRODUCTION: Periapical images are routinely made in endodontics to support diagnosis and treatment decisions, but conventional imaging may not readily demonstrate inflammatory changes. This study aims to quantify disagreement in the radiologic interpretation of apical periodontitis/rarefying osteitis between 2 expert examiners and to determine if differences exist based on anatomic location. METHODS: We used 1717 pretreatment periapical images made before orthograde endodontic treatment as part of the Predicting Outcomes of Root Canal Treatment (PREDICT) study conducted within the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Periapical changes were assessed independently by 2 board-certified specialists, an oral and maxillofacial radiologist and an endodontist, blinded to other clinical information. If the examiners disagreed about whether a diagnosis of apical periodontitis/rarefying osteitis was justified, an adjudication was made by a third examiner. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of this radiologic diagnosis in the periapical images was 55%, and interexaminer agreement measured with the Cohen kappa statistic was calculated to be 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.60). Diagnostic disagreements between the 2 examiners occurred for 377 teeth (22%), with disagreements more frequent for jaw location (P = .038) and tooth type (P = .021). Differences between root number (P = .058) and jaw location and tooth groups (P = .069) were found not to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of diagnostic disagreements across anatomic location and tooth type may reflect the inability of periapical images to reveal bone changes masked by the complexity and density of overlying anatomic structures, a limitation that could potentially be overcome with the use of 3-dimensional imaging.

Examining the association of medical-dental integration with closure of medical care gaps among the elderly population.

BACKGROUND: The integration of medical and dental care in the dental setting offers a unique opportunity to close medical care gaps, such as providing immunizations and laboratory-based tests, compared with traditional nonintegrated settings. METHODS: We used a matched cohort study design among patients 65 years or older (n = 2,578) with an index dental visit to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest medical-dental integration (MDI) program from June 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. MDI patients were matched 1:1 to non-MDI controls (n = 2,578) on 14 characteristics. The Kaiser Permanente Northwest MDI program focuses on closing 23 preventive (for example, flu vaccines) and disease management care gaps (for example, glycated hemoglobin testing) within the dental setting. The closure of all care gaps (yes versus no) was the outcome for the analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between exposure to the MDI program and level of office integration (least, moderate, and most integration) with closure of care gaps. All data were obtained through Kaiser Permanente Northwest's electronic health record. RESULTS: MDI patients had significantly higher odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 1.65) of closing all medical care gaps than non-MDI patients. Greater MDI integration was associated with significantly higher odds of gap closure compared with non-MDI (least integration: OR, 1.18, 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.37; moderate integration: OR, 1.70, 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.12; most integration: OR, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving dental care in an MDI program had higher odds of closing medical care gaps compared with similar patients receiving dental care in a non-MDI program. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: MDI is effective at facilitating delivery of preventive and disease management medical services.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Medical-Dental Integration to Close Preventive and Disease Management Care Gaps.

Background: The integration of medical care into the dental setting has been shown to facilitate the closure of care gaps among patients with unmet needs. However, little is known about whether program effectiveness varies depending on whether the care gap is related to preventive care or disease management. Materials and Methods: We used a matched cohort study design to compare closure of care gaps between patients aged 65+ who received care at a Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) Medical-Dental Integration (MDI) clinic or a non-MDI dental clinic between June 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. The KPNW MDI program focuses on closing 12 preventive (e.g., flu vaccines) and 11 disease management care gaps (e.g., HbA1c testing) within the dental setting. Using the multivariable logistic regression, we separately analyzed care gap closure rates (yes vs. no) for patients who were overdue for: (1) preventive services only (n = 1,611), (2) disease management services only (n = 538), or (3) both types of services (n = 429), analyzing closure of each care gap type separately. All data were obtained through the electronic health record of KPNW. Results: The MDI patients had significantly higher odds of closing preventive care gaps (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.30-1.75) and disease management care gaps (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.27-2.15) than the non-MDI patients when they only had care gaps of one type or the other. However, no significant association was found between MDI and care gap closure when patients were overdue for both care gap types. Conclusions: Patients with care gaps related to either preventive care or disease management who received dental care in an MDI clinic had higher odds of closing these care gaps, but we found no evidence that MDI was helpful for those with both types of care gaps. Practical Implications: MDI may be an effective model for facilitating the delivery of preventive and disease management services, mainly when patients are overdue for one type of these services. Future research should examine the impact of MDI on long-term health outcomes.

Practitioner Engagement in Activities of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN): 7-Year Results.

PURPOSE: To 1) quantify practitioner activities of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (Network) for which Continuing Education (CE) credits were received (study training, videos, webinars, meetings, and symposia); 2) quantify practitioner coauthoring Network publications and presentations; and 3) test whether practitioner characteristics were associated with participation in these activities. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 4361 practitioners who enrolled in the Network between April 12, 2012 and October 12, 2018. RESULTS: Overall, 59% (n = 2586) of practitioners earned CE credit from the Network; among these, 68% (n = 1757) from a video, 38% (n = 993) attended an annual Network meeting, 31% (n = 798) due to training for a Network clinical study, 9% (n = 226) attended a national symposium, and 7% (n = 170) participated in a Network webinar. Members of 2 large group practices earned on average more CEs than practitioners from other practice settings. Four percent (n = 159) of practitioners coauthored a Network presentation or publication. Practitioners who received their dental degree before 2000, were general practitioners, or were members of 2 large group practices, were more likely to have coauthored a publication or presentation. CONCLUSION: This Network used a broad range of activities to engage community practitioners. These activities were successful in sustaining a high level of practitioner engagement in clinical research and its relevance to everyday clinical practice.

Concordance between practitioner questionnaire responses and observed clinical treatment recommendations for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Few published reports have presented concordance between treatment choices selected by dentists in hypothetical clinical scenarios and treatment choices made by the same dentists in actual clinical practice. The aim of the current cross-sectional study, conducted within the Management of Dental Hypersensitivity (MDH) study, was to assess the potential value of practitioners' questionnaire responses regarding their typical treatment provided for management of dentin hypersensitivity (DH), by evaluating agreement between these responses and subsequently-observed recommendations recorded during actual clinical examinations. METHODS: A total of 171 practitioners enrolled in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed both a questionnaire and a clinical study regarding methods they use to treat dental hypersensitivity. The questionnaire solicited first-, second- and third-choice products when prescribing or recommending management of dentin hypersensitivity. Agreement was calculated for first-choice products/recommendations and for inclusion in the top three choices, as identified by the practitioners, from 11 listed treatment options. Overall percent agreement and Cohen's kappa statistic were calculated, with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Associations between practitioner characteristics and agreement were also evaluated. RESULTS: For individual treatment modalities, percentage agreement ranged from 63 to 99%, depending on the specific item. Percentage agreement between typical treatment and actual treatment for each practitioner's top three treatment modalities, as a combined grouping, ranged from 61 to 100%. When these same agreement pairings were quantified to account for agreement above that expected by chance, kappa values were poor to low. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance between hypothetical clinical scenarios and treatment choices made by the same dentists in actual clinical practice showed moderate to high levels of percentage agreement, but Cohen's kappa values suggested relatively low levels of agreement beyond that expected by chance. This analysis adds to the larger work of the network which has now observed a wide range of agreement between hypothetical and actual care, depending upon the specific diagnosis or treatment under consideration. Questionnaire data for DH might serve as a useful adjunct to clinical data regarding treatment recommendations, but agreement was not sufficiently high to justify use of questionnaires alone to characterize patterns of treatment for this particular condition.

Leadership in practice-based research: The National Dental PBRN.

Practice-based research networks with strong leadership can be effective venues for the translation of research findings. Coordinating all the efforts across a Network composed of individuals with a broad range of expertise, goals, and expectations can, however, be cumbersome, posing many different leadership challenges.

Practitioner Participation in National Dental Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) Studies: 12-Year Results.

PURPOSE: This study examines practitioner participation over 12 years in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) studies and practitioner meetings, average length of participation, and association of practitioner- and practice-level characteristics with participation. Little information exists about practitioners' long-term participation in PBRNs. METHODS: The network conducted a retrospective analysis of practitioner participation in 3 main network activities during 2005 to 2017. Practitioners who completed an enrollment questionnaire, practiced in the United States, and either attended a network meeting or received an invitation to complete a questionnaire or clinical study were included in the analysis. Practitioners (n = 3669) met inclusion criteria. The network implemented 38 studies (28 clinical and 10 questionnaire), 23 of which (15 clinical and 8 questionnaire) met the criteria for the current analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 86% (N = 3148) participated in at least 1 network activity during 2005 to 2017. Questionnaire studies had the highest rate with 81% (N = 2963) completing at least 1, 21% (N = 762) completed at least 1 clinical study and 19% (N = 700) attended at least 1 network meeting. Among 1578 practitioners enrolled in the first 5 years of the Network launch, 20% (N = 320) participated in multiple network activities over 5 to 9 years, and 14% (N = 238) for 10 to 12 years. Practitioner characteristics associated with participation varied depending on the activity assessed. CONCLUSION: The network engaged practitioners in its research activities with relatively high participation rates over a 12-year period. Strategies employed by the network to engage practitioners may serve as a model for PBRN networks for other allied health professions.

Barriers to sealant guideline implementation within a multi-site managed care dental practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in a large, multi-site dental practice to implementing the American Dental Association's recommendation for sealing noncavitated occlusal carious lesions as established in their 2016 pit-and-fissure sealant clinical practice guideline. Although previous research has identified barriers to using sealants perceived by dentists in private practice, barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in large, multi-site dental practices have yet to be identified. Identifying barriers for these dentists is important, because it is expected that in the future, the multi-site group practice configuration will comprise more dental practices. METHODS: We anonymously surveyed the 110 general and pediatric dentists at a multi-site dental practice in the U.S. The survey assessed potential barriers in three domains: practice environment, prevailing opinion, and knowledge and attitudes. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 62%. The principal barrier characterizing the practice environment was concern regarding liability; endorsed by 33% of the dentists. Many barriers of prevailing opinion were frequently endorsed. These included misunderstanding the standard of practice (59%), being unaware of the expectations of opinion leaders (56%) including being unaware of the guideline itself (67%), and being unaware of what is currently being taught in dental schools (58%). Finally, barriers of knowledge and attitudes were frequently endorsed. These included having suboptimal skill in applying sealants (23% - 47%) and lacking knowledge regarding the relative efficacy of the different ways to manage noncavitated occlusal carious lesions (50%). CONCLUSIONS: We identified barriers frequently endorsed by dentists in a large, multi-site dental practice relating to the practice environment, prevailing opinion, and knowledge and attitudes. All the barriers we identified have the potential to be addressed by implementation strategies. Future studies should devise and test implementation strategies to target these barriers.