The growing cohort of seniors with HIV/AIDS: changing the scope of Medicare Part D.

HIV/AIDS medications are generally expensive and government assistance is often necessary to limit high out-of-pocket patient costs. Lowered patient out-of-pocket costs were the objective of government involvement in drug provision through legislation creating Medicare Part D. However, the Medicare program faces a surge in those beneficiaries living longer on more effective antiretroviral drugs. Higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS patients means more opportunity for transmission of the infection and recidivistic behavior such as non-adherence to medication regimens. Along with the resulting increased frequency of opportunistic infections in HIV/AIDS patients comes the requirement for aggressive pharmacological treatment. To meet this need, Medicare Part D provides drugs for the treatment of opportunistic infections occurring in HIV/AIDS patients. Problematically, though, Medicare Part D contains so many choices that it tends to overwhelm patients and sometimes even the providers and insurance companies as well. The multiplicity of choices in this highly complex program for the aged and infirm often leads to confusion and incorrect choices by beneficiaries. Furthermore, the advent of tiered cost-sharing or formulary management by Medicare Part D providers, besides controlling out-of-pocket costs, controls which medications are covered and limits the quantity that is dispensed. HIV/AIDS treatment in the present day requires a highly accessible medication provision program that is only now beginning to evolve as Medicare Part D.

A psychosocial approach to dentistry for the underserved: incorporating theory into practice.

BACKGROUND: Dentistry for the underserved is more than an egalitarian social issue--it is a key factor in the health and social progress of our nation. The first signs or manifestations of several diseases such as varicella (i.e., chicken pox and shingles), STDs, and influenza become apparent in the oral cavity. The value of access to quality dentistry is an immeasurable factor in maintaining general medical health of people and fulfilling their psychosocial needs of pain reduction and enhanced cosmetics. In the United States, for the most part, only the middle and upper classes receive non-extraction, restorative, and prosthetic dentistry that is economically within their ability to pay. In addition, uninsured and poverty-level individuals often must face overwhelming long waiting lists, unnecessary referrals, lack of choice, and bureaucratic hurdles when seeking primary dental care. Therefore, it seems pertinent to put forth the question: What are the critical values and beliefs of psychosocial theory that can underscore the practice of dentistry for underserved populations in the United States? METHODS: The widely employed public health theory, the health belief model (HBM), is applied to evaluate psychosocial factors in dental care for the underserved. The HBM is used to predict and explain behavioral changes in dental health and associated belief patterns. RESULTS: The HBM as applied to dentistry for the underserved predicts self-perceptions of susceptibility and seriousness of dental disease, health status, cues to action, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, patients can make judgments about benefits, costs, and risks of dental treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A theoretical approach to dentistry employing the HBM, mediated by values and culture, can provide significant insights into patient thinking, beliefs, and perceptions. These insights can mediate access to and use of primary care dental services by underserved populations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Evidence-based practice (i.e., based on research using the scientific method) has been put forth as the future of modern dentistry. However, the practice of dentistry need not just be evidence-based, but have its roots clearly grounded in theory.

Integrating child dental care at Community Smiles: the director's goals fulfilled....

Community Smiles/Dade County Dental Research Clinic provides dental care to the indigent population of Miami-Dade County. A local board of directors governs the organization, with dental procedures performed by volunteer professionals from the community. The research clinic partners with community organizations to obtain sustained funding from diverse sources. The clinic has a long-term commitment to the growth and development of children in the community. Certainly, changing the structure and focus of the clinic toward children's dental care and seeking community funding and resources to institute this program was an experiment. In his four years as clinic director and chief executive officer (CEO) at Community Smiles, the late Dr. Robert M. Wolf brought increased clinic productivity and organizational change that expanded community involvement. Dr. Wolf's tenure at Community Smiles brought general increases in patients care in terms of patients visits, new patients and number of procedures performed. However, the key to his administration as clinic director and CEO was the production and integration of a children's dentistry program into the mainstream activities of the clinic. Furthermore, he oversaw the successful corporate reorganization of Community Smiles as the clinic emerged under a non-profit corporate structure employing multi-faceted community resources. Emphasizing new dental programs for children in the community is culturally and socially competent--positively impacting the public health. Community Smiles became a venue where disparities were largely eliminated and access to dental treatment increased. Health care was promoted as Community Smiles became a place that helped build a healthier community.

Dentists in practice-based research networks have much in common with dentists at large: evidence from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) aim to improve clinical practice by engaging dental practitioners in studies that are directly relevant to daily clinical practice. The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) consists of dentists from seven U.S. states and three Scandinavian countries. All DPBRN dentists complete an enrollment questionnaire about their practices and themselves; as of this writing, 1,086 have done so. To quantify the similarities between DPBRN dentists and U.S. dentists at large, this article compared DPBRN practice characteristics to those of dentists who responded to the 2004 ADA Survey of dental practice, which is not limited to ADA members. DPBRN dentists were similar to U.S. dentists in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, number of offices, percentage of patients with insurance coverage, number of operatories, patient visits per week, days for a new appointment, and waiting room time. DPBRN dentists were statistically more likely to be recent graduates. The commonalities should increase the likelihood that DPBRN studies will be applicable to U.S. practices, thereby fostering knowledge transfer in both research-to-practice and practice-to-research.

The creation and development of the dental practice-based research network.

BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are consortia of practices committed to improving clinical practice. They have become more common and include dental PBRNs. Few reports in the literature, however, have addressed the structure and function of dental PBRNs. METHODS: After initial development in Alabama, the Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) now includes practitioner-investigators in seven U.S. states and three Scandinavian countries. Although most of the function and structure was developed at the inception of DPBRN, valuable input from practitioner-investigators has led to significant ongoing refinements. RESULTS: DPBRN practitioner-investigators have contributed to research at each stage of its development, leading to substantial improvements in study designs and customization of study protocols to their daily clinical practices. Practitioner-investigators also have helped refine the structure and function of DPBRN to foster the potential impact of research. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners from diverse settings are partnering with fellow practitioners and academics to improve daily clinical practice and meet the needs of clinicians and their patients in DPBRN. Practice Implications. Dental PBRNs can improve clinical practice by engaging dentists in the development and implementation of studies that are of direct interest to them and their patients, and by incorporating findings from these studies into their daily clinical practice.

Techniques and materials used by general dentists during endodontic treatment procedures: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about which materials and techniques general dentists (GDs) use during endodontic procedures. The objectives were to quantify GDs' use of specific endodontic tools, quantify inappropriate use, and ascertain whether inappropriate use is associated with GDs' practice characteristics. METHODS: GDs in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network reported in a questionnaire materials and techniques they use during endodontic procedures. RESULTS: Among eligible GDs, 1,490 (87%) participated. Most (93%; n = 1,383) used sodium hypochlorite to irrigate. The most commonly used sealers were zinc oxide eugenol (43%) and resin (40%), followed by calcium hydroxide (26%). Most (62%; n = 920) used a compaction obturation technique; 36% (n = 534) used a carrier-based method. Most (96%; n = 1,423) used gutta-percha as a filler; 5% used paste fillers. Few used irrigants (n = 46), techniques (n = 49), or fillers (n = 10) that investigators classified as inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: GDs use a broad range of endodontic techniques and materials, often adapting to newer technologies as they become available. Few GDs use tools that the investigators classified as inappropriate. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: GDs use many types of endodontic techniques and materials, but only a small percentage of them are inappropriate.

Discordance between presumed standard of care and actual clinical practice: the example of rubber dam use during root canal treatment in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: Use of a rubber dam during root canal treatment is considered the standard of care because it enhances patient safety and optimises the odds of successful treatment. Nonetheless, not all dentists use a rubber dam, creating disconnect between presumed standard of care and what is actually done in clinical practice. Little is known about dentists' attitudes towards use of the rubber dam in their practices. The objectives were to: (1) quantify these attitudes and (2) test the hypothesis that specific attitudes are significantly associated with rubber dam use. SETTING: National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (NationalDentalPBRN.org). PARTICIPANTS: 1490 network dentists. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dentists completed a questionnaire about their attitudes towards rubber dam use during root canal treatment. Three attitude scales comprised 33 items that used a 5-point ordinal scale to measure beliefs about effectiveness, inconvenience, ease of placement, comparison to other isolation techniques and patient factors. Factor analysis, cluster analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysed the relationship between attitudes and rubber dam use. RESULTS: All items had responses at each point on the 5-point scale, with an overall pattern of substantial variation across dentists. Five attitudinal factors (rubber dam effectiveness; inconvenient/time-consuming; ease of placement; effectiveness compared to Isolite; patient factors) and 4 clusters of practitioners were identified. Each factor and cluster was independently and strongly associated with rubber dam use. CONCLUSIONS: General dentists have substantial variation in attitudes about rubber dam use. Beliefs that rubber dam use is not effective, inconvenient, time-consuming, not easy to place or affected by patient factors, were independently and significantly associated with lower rubber dam use. These attitudes explain why there is substantial discordance between presumed standard of care and actual practice.

General Dentists' Use of Isolation Techniques during Root Canal Treatment: From the National Dental Practice-based Research Network.

INTRODUCTION: A preliminary study done by a National Dental Practice-Based Research Network precursor observed that 44% of general dentists (GDs) reported always using a rubber dam (RD) during root canal treatment (RCT). This full-scale study quantified the use of all isolation techniques, including RD use. METHODS: Network practitioners completed a questionnaire about isolation techniques used during RCT. Network enrollment questionnaire data provided practitioner characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred ninety of 1716 eligible GDs participated (87%); 697 (47%) reported always using an RD. This percentage varied by tooth type. These GDs were more likely to always use an RD, do not own a private practice, perform less than 10 RCTs/month, and have postgraduate training. CONCLUSIONS: Most GDs do not use an RD all the time. Ironically, RDs are used more frequently by GDs who do not perform molar RCT. RD use varies with tooth type and certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics.

Rubber dam use during root canal treatment: findings from The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) provided a means to investigate whether certain procedures were performed routinely. The authors conducted a study to quantify rubber dam use during root canal treatment (RCT) among general dentists and to test the hypothesis that certain dentist or practice characteristics were associated with rubber dam use. METHODS: DPBRN practitioner-investigators (P-Is) answered a questionnaire that included items about rubber dam use and other forms of isolation during RCT. DPBRN enrollment questionnaire data provided information regarding practitioner and practice characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 729 (74 percent) of 991 P-Is responded; 524 were general dentists who reported providing at least some RCTs and reported the percentage of RCTs for which they used a rubber dam. Of these 524 P-Is, 44 percent used a rubber dam for all RCTs, 24 percent used it for 51 to 99 percent of RCTs, 17 percent used it for 1 to 50 percent of RCTs, and 15 percent never used it during RCT. Usage varied significantly by geographic region and practice type. The use of cotton rolls and other forms of isolation also was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other reports in the literature, not all DPBRN general dentists used a rubber dam during RCT. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Because the clinical reference standard is to use a rubber dam during RCT, increasing its use may be important.

Purpose, structure, and function of the United States National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: Following a successful 2005-2012 phase with three regional practice-based research networks (PBRNs), a single, unified national network called "The National Dental PBRN" was created in 2012 in the United States to improve oral health by conducting practice-based research and serving dental professionals through education and collegiality. METHODS: Central administration is based in Alabama. Regional centres are based in Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, New York and Texas, with a Coordinating Centre in Maryland. Ideas for studies are prioritized by the Executive Committee, comprised mostly of full-time clinicians. RESULTS: To date, 2763 persons have enrolled, from all six network regions; enrollment continues to expand. They represent a broad range of practitioners, practice types, and patient populations. Practitioners are actively improving every step of the research process, from idea generation, to study development, field testing, data collection, and presentation and publication. CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners from diverse settings are partnering with fellow practitioners and academics to improve clinical practice and meet the needs of clinicians and their patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This "nation's network" aims to serve as a precious national resource to improve the scientific basis for clinical decision-making and foster movement of the latest evidence into routine practice.

Lessons learned during the conduct of clinical studies in the dental PBRN.

Effectively addressing challenges of conducting research in nonacademic settings is crucial to its success. A dental practice-based research network called The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) is comprised of practitioner- investigators in two health maintenance organizations, several universities, many U.S. states, and three Scandinavian countries. Our objective in this article is to describe lessons learned from conducting studies in this research context; the studies are conducted by clinicians in community settings who may be doing their first research study. To date, twenty-one studies have been completed or are in implementation. These include a broad range of topic areas, enrollment sizes, and study designs. A total of 1,126 practitioner-investigators have participated in at least one study. After excluding one study because it involved electronic records queries only, these studies included more than 70,000 patient/participant units. Because the DPBRN is committed to being both practitioner- and patient-driven, all studies must be approved by its Executive Committee and a formal study section of academic clinical scientists. As a result of interacting with a diverse range of institutional and regulatory entities, funding agencies, practitioners, clinic staff, patients, academic scientists, and geographic areas, twenty-three key lessons have been learned. Patients' acceptance of these studies has been very high, judging from high participation rates and their completion of data forms. Early studies substantially informed later studies with regard to study design, practicality, forms design, informed consent process, and training and monitoring methods. Although time-intensive and complex, these solutions improved acceptability of practice-based research to patients, practitioners, and university researchers.