Academic detailing in oral healthcare–results of the ADVOCATE Field Studies

F. Baâdoudi, D. Duijster, N. Maskrey, F.M. Ali, K. Rosing, G.J.M.G. van der Heijden

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Academic detailing (AD) is a defined form of educational outreach that can be used to influence decision making and reduce unwarranted variation in healthcare delivery. This paper describes the results of the proof of concept phase of the ADVOCATE Field Studies. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and usefulness of AD reinforced with feedback data, to promote prevention-oriented, patient-centred and evidence-based oral healthcare delivery by general dental practitioners (GDPs). Methods: In the Field Studies, six groups of GDPs (n = 39) were recruited in The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Each group had four meetings reinforced with feedback data for open discussions on dental practice and healthcare delivery. Conventional and directed content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data collected from focus group interviews, debriefing interviews, field notes and evaluation forms. Results: A total of nine themes were identified. Seven themes related to the process of the Field Studies and covered experiences, barriers and facilitators to AD group meetings, data collection and the use of an electronic dashboard for data presentation and storage. Two themes related to the outcomes of the study, describing how GDPs perceived they made changes to their clinical practice as a result of the Field Studies. Conclusions: The ADVOCATE Field Studies approach offers a novel way of collecting and providing feedback to care providers which has the potential to reduce variation oral healthcare delivery. AD plus feedback data is a useful, feasible approach which creates awareness and gives insight into care delivery processes. Some logistic and technical barriers to adoption were identified, which if resolved would further improve the approach and likely increase the acceptability amongst GDPs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)481-493
Number of pages13
JournalActa Odontologica Scandinavica
Volume78
Issue number7
Early online date26 Feb 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Oct 2020

Funding

All authors received funding from a European Union Research Grant (ADVOCATE) under Horizon 2020; [Grant Agreement No. 635183]. http://advocateoralhealth.com We would like to thank the contributors to the ADVOCATE project: the ADVOCATE Scientific Advisory Board–Stephen Birch, Martin Chalkley, Roger Ellwood, Ekatarina Fabrikant, Jeffery Fellows, Christopher Fox, Frank Fox, Dympna Kavanagh, John Lavis, Roger Matthews, Mariano Sanz, Paula Vassalo and Sandra White; the ADVOCATE General Assembly–Renske van der Kaaden, Lisa Bøge Christensen, Gail Douglas, Kenneth Eaton, Gerard Gavin, Jochem Walker, Stefan Listl, Gabor Nagy, Karen O’Hanlon, Andrew Taylor, Helen Whelton, Noel Woods; the ADVOCATE Ethics Advisory Board–Mary Donnelly, Eckert Feifel, Jon Fistein, Evert-Ben van Veen and Agnes Zana; the ADVOCATE project coordinator, Maria Tobin; and the co-workers of the ADVOCATE project. We specially thank the GDPs and Stewards participating in this study. We would also like to thank Ana-Lena Trescher, Olivier Kalmus and Lisa Bøge Christensen for their help in data collection and transcription of Focus groups and Olivier Kalmus in liaising with the local ethics committee in Germany.

FundersFunder number
GDPs
European Commission
Horizon 2020635183

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Academic detailing in oral healthcare–results of the ADVOCATE Field Studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this