Search

Background: Physical therapy (PT) has been shown to be one of the most effective conservative treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Not all dentists are aware of the importance of the collaboration with physical therapists in the treatment of TMD pain., Objectives: To determine the awareness of dentists in Florida about the importance of PT for TMD pain and to create awareness related to collaborations., Methods: An online questionnaire was used. A contact list of dentists was obtained from the Florida Dental Association. The overall awareness and information on patient referral were presented per dentist specialty., Results: A total of 256 dentists completed the survey. Prior to the survey, 41% of the dentists reported not aware that PTs can treat TMD patients. Oral surgeons and orthodontists were more aware about PT compared to other specialties. After the survey, 81% of the dentists were more likely to refer their TMD patients to PT, and 80% were interested to know more about the benefits of collaborations., Conclusion: This study shows the lack of dentists' awareness in Florida about the benefits of PT for TMD treatment. This study increased the awareness of the surveyed dentists in Florida about the benefit from a multidisciplinary approach.

The aim of this study was to measure the validity of the prescriber information recorded in the Danish National Prescription Registry (DNPR). The prescriber information recorded in the pharmacies' electronic dispensing system was considered to represent the prescriber information recorded in the DNPR. Further, the problem of validity of the prescriber information pertains only to non-electronic prescriptions, as these are manually entered into the dispensing system. The recorded prescriber information was thus validated against information from a total of 2000 non-electronic prescriptions at five Danish community pharmacies. The validity of the recorded prescriber information was measured at the level of the individual prescriber and the prescriber type, respectively. The proportion of non-electronic prescriptions with incorrect registrations was 22.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.6-24.3) when considering individual prescriber identifiers and 17.8% (95% CI: 16.1-19.5) when considering prescriber type. When excluding prescriptions specifically registered as 'missing prescriber identifier', the proportions decreased to 9.5% (95% CI: 8.2-11.0) and 4.1% (95% CI: 3.2-5.1), respectively. The positive predictive values for the classification of prescriber types were in the range of 94.0-99.2%, while the sensitivity ranged between 64.6% and 91.8%. With a maximum of 14% non-electronic prescriptions of all prescriptions in the DNPR in 2015, this corresponds to correct classification of prescriber types in the DNPR of at least 97.5%. In conclusion, the prescriber information in the DNPR was found to be valid, especially in recent years. Researchers should be aware of the low sensitivity towards prescriptions from private practicing specialists., (© 2016 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

Background: Physician rating websites have been gaining in importance in both practice and research. However, no evidence is available concerning patients' ratings of dentists on physician rating websites., Objective: The aim of this study is to present a comprehensive analysis of the ratings of dentists on a German physician rating website over a 2-year period., Methods: All dentist ratings on a German physician rating website (Jameda) from 2012 and 2013 were analyzed. The available dataset contained 76,456 ratings of 23,902 dentists from 72,758 patients. Additional information included the overall score and subscores for 5 mandatory questions, the medical specialty and gender of the dentists, and the age, gender, and health insurance status of the patients. Statistical analysis was conducted using the median test and the Kendall tau-b test., Results: During the study period, 44.57% (23,902/53,626) of all dentists in Germany were evaluated on the physician rating website, Jameda. The number of ratings rose from 28,843 in 2012 to 47,613 in 2013, representing an increase of 65.08%. In detail, 45.37% (10,845/23,902) of dentists were rated once, 43.41% (10,376/23,902) between 2 and 5 times, and 11.21% (2681/23,902) more than 6 times (mean 3.16, SD 5.57). Approximately 90% (21,324/23,902, 89.21%) of dentists received a very good or good overall rating, whereas only 3.02% (721/23,902) were rated with the lowest scores. Better ratings were given either by female or older patients, or by those covered by private health insurance. The best-rated specialty was pediatric dentistry; the lowest ratings were given to orthodontists. Finally, dentists were rated slightly lower in 2013 compared to 2012 (P=.01)., Conclusions: The rise in the number of ratings for dentists demonstrates the increasing popularity of physician rating websites and the need for information about health care providers. Future research should assess whether social media, especially Web-based ratings, are suitable in practice for patients and other stakeholders in health care (eg, insurance providers) to reflect the clinical quality of care.