Search

Objectives: A proof-of-concept study has shown that the Added Value for Oral Care (ADVOCATE) Field Studies approach (academic detailing with feedback data) is considered a feasible, useful, and acceptable way to motivate general dental practitioners (GDPs) to reflect on and, if required, change their oral health-care delivery. The aims of this proof-of-principle study were to test whether such results were reproducible and to reach consensus among stakeholders on recommendations for wider implementation., Methods: Eleven groups of GDPs were recruited in 6 countries (Denmark, England Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and The Netherlands). Each group had 3 academic detailing meetings, being stimulated by feedback data. Focus group interviews were held to evaluate the reproducibility of the Field Studies approach. A World Café session explored suggestions for the wider implementation of the approach., Results: Replicable results on feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the Field Studies approach were seen; 7 out of 9 themes identified in the proof-of-concept study were validated. Directed content analyses identified that adjustments to procedures to collect and present feedback data were desirable. Overall, the approach can stimulate GDPs to reflect on and change aspects of their oral health-care delivery., Conclusions: The Field Studies approach, after some adjustments to data collection procedures, is ready for further testing in larger studies., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.