Development and evaluation of a mobile patient application to enhance medical-dental integration for the treatment of periodontitis and diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: People around the world are increasingly affected by multimorbidity, where conditions in different medical specialties can correlate in complex ways. This increases the relevance of multidisciplinary integrated care pathways. Modern software solutions provide vast opportunities to enhance information exchange between patients and various healthcare professionals, thereby improving patient-centered and inter-professional care. This paper describes the development and validation of a mobile patient application which exploits Patient Reported Outcomes to enhance patient-centered medical-dental integration with a focus on integrated management of periodontitis and diabetes. METHODS: This study was part of a multidisciplinary project for enhancement of medical-dental integration. The Intervention Mapping Protocol was supplemented by the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, including literature reviews, focus group discussions and a Delphi panel in cooperation with various stakeholders. A mobile application was developed in close collaboration with patients, physicians and dentists. The usability of the application's core components was validated in two medical and two dental practices using the System Usability Scale (SUS). RESULTS: 39 questions were identified to provide relevant patient-reported information which can be collected via a mobile application to enhance integrated management of periodontitis and diabetes. Usability testing of the application's core components (14 questions) among 137 participants in medical and dental practices indicated a good SUS score of 77.88 (±12.17). DISCUSSION: The systematically developed mobile application offers the potential to provide physicians and dentists with treatment-relevant information to enhance medical-dental integration, thereby reducing the workload of medical staff, improving the quality of routinely collected data, and enabling automated data processing. This unique, novel, and validated approach can serve as an open framework for the development and evaluation of interdisciplinary healthcare software.

Disentangling a web of causation: An ethnographic study of interlinked patient barriers to planned dental visiting, and strategies to overcome them.

OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers to planned dental visiting, investigating how barriers interlink, how they accumulate and change, and how individuals envisage overcoming their combination of barriers through personal strategies. METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted of adult urgent dental care attenders who did not have a dentist, including 155 hours of nonparticipant observations, 97 interviews and 19 follow-up interviews in six urgent dental care settings. Data were analysed using constant comparison, first identifying barriers and personal strategies to overcome them, and subsequently analysing interlinks between barriers and personal strategies. RESULTS: Accounts of barriers to planned dental visiting encompassed multiple barriers, which related to socioeconomic circumstances as well as experiences of oral health care. Barriers were multi-layered and more difficult to overcome when occurring together. Personal strategies to overcome diverse barriers often hinged on increasing importance of oral health to individuals, yet this was not always sufficient. The combination of barriers participants experience was dynamic, changing due to personal, family, or employment circumstances, and with increasing severity of barriers over time. Over time, this could lead to higher cost, and additional barriers, particularly embarrassment. CONCLUSION: Barriers to planned dental visiting are complex, multi-layered and change over time, constituting a 'web of causation'. This adds a novel perspective to the literature on barriers to dental visiting, and requires that researchers, dental practitioners and policy makers remain open to barriers' interlinked effects, changes in primacy among individual patients' barriers, and their accumulation over time to better support uptake of planned dental visiting.

General practitioners' accounts of negotiating antibiotic prescribing decisions with patients: a qualitative study on what influences antibiotic prescribing in low, medium and high prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is high on the UK public health policy agenda, and poses challenges to patient safety and the provision of health services. Widespread prescribing of antibiotics is thought to increase AMR, and mostly takes place in primary medical care. However, prescribing rates vary substantially between general practices. The aim of this study was to understand contextual factors related to general practitioners' (GPs) antibiotic prescribing behaviour in low, high, and around the mean (medium) prescribing primary care practices. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 GPs working in North-West England. Participants were purposively sampled from practices with low, medium, and high antibiotic prescribing rates adjusted for the number and characteristics of patients registered in a practice. The interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: This study found that optimizing antibiotic prescribing creates tensions for GPs, particularly in doctor-patient communication during a consultation. GPs balanced patient expectations and their own decision-making in their communication. When not prescribing antibiotics, GPs reported the need for supportive mechanisms, such as regular practice meetings, within the practice, and in the wider healthcare system (e.g. longer consultation times). In low prescribing practices, GPs reported that increasing dialogue with colleagues, having consistent patterns of prescribing within the practice, supportive practice policies, and enough resources such as consultation time were important supports when not prescribing antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Insight into GPs' negotiations with patient and public health demands, and consistent and supportive practice-level policies can help support prudent antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices.

Current Knowledge on Correlations Between Highly Prevalent Dental Conditions and Chronic Diseases: An Umbrella Review.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have investigated the relationships between chronic systemic and dental conditions, but it remains unclear how such knowledge can be used in clinical practice. In this article, we provide an overview of existing systematic reviews, identifying and evaluating the most frequently reported dental-chronic disease correlations and common risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of existing systematic reviews (umbrella review) published between 1995 and 2017 and indexed in 4 databases. We focused on the 3 most prevalent dental conditions and 10 chronic systemic diseases with the highest burden of disease in Germany. Two independent reviewers assessed all articles for eligibility and methodologic quality using the AMSTAR criteria and extracted data from the included studies. RESULTS: Of the initially identified 1,249 systematic reviews, 32 were included for qualitative synthesis. The dental condition with most frequently observed correlations to chronic systemic diseases was periodontitis. The chronic systemic disease with the most frequently observed correlations with a dental condition was type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Most dental-chronic disease correlations were found between periodontitis and T2DM and periodontitis and cardiovascular disease. Frequently reported common risk factors were smoking, age, sex, and overweight. Using the AMSTAR criteria, 2 studies were assessed as low quality, 26 studies as moderate quality, and 4 studies as high quality. CONCLUSION: The quality of included systematic reviews was heterogeneous. The most frequently reported correlations were found for periodontitis with T2DM and for periodontitis with cardiovascular disease. However, the strength of evidence for these and other disease correlations is limited, and the evidence to assess the causality of these disease correlations remains unclear. Future research should focus on the causality of disease links in order to provide more decisive evidence with respect to the design of intersectoral care processes.

Dentists' opinions on using digital technologies in dental practice.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate which opinions among dentists are associated with level of technology use, when characteristics of the dentist and dental practice, as well as motivating work aspects are taken into account. METHODS: A total of 1000 general dental practitioners in the Netherlands received a questionnaire on digital technologies they use, opinions on using technologies and related motivating work aspects. Questions were derived from expert interviews, the Dentists' Experienced Job Resources Scale and literature on technology implementation. Technology use was measured as the number of technologies used, and divided into three technology user groups: low (using 0-4 technologies, mostly administrative and radiographic technologies), intermediate (using 5-7, more varied technologies) and high technology users (using 8-12, including more innovative diagnostic technologies). Opinions on technology use and motivating work aspects were analysed using principal components analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis. Scores on all components and factors were calculated for each respondent by computing the mean of all valid responses on the underlying items. Differences in these scale scores on opinions among the technology user groups were assessed using one-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. A multiple linear regression analysis assessed the association of scale scores about opinions on technology use with the sum of technologies used, taking into account motivating work aspects and characteristics of the dentist and dental practice. RESULTS: The response rate was 31%. Dentists who were high technology users perceived technologies as yielding more improvements in quality of care, adding more value to the dental practice and being easier to use, than low technology users. High technology users thought technologies added more value to their work and they reported higher skills and resources. They also focused more on technologies and thought these are more ready to use than low technology users. High technology users derived more motivation from "Immediate results" and "Craftsmanship" than low technology users. Personal and practice characteristics, motivating work aspects, and the opinion scales "Focus" and "Added value to dentist" explained 50% of the variance in the number of technologies a dentist uses. CONCLUSION: Opinions on digital technologies among dentists and motivating work aspects vary with level of technology use. Being more focused on technologies and perceiving a higher added value from using them are associated with using more digital dental technologies, when taking into account motivating work aspects and characteristics of the dentist and dental practice.

Adoption and use of digital technologies among general dental practitioners in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate (1) the degree of digital technology adoption among general dental practitioners, and to assess (2) which personal and practice factors are associated with technology use. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed among a stratified sample of 1000 general dental practitioners in the Netherlands, to measure the use of fifteen administrative, communicative, clinical and diagnostic technologies, as well as personal factors and dental practice characteristics. RESULTS: The response rate was 31.3%; 65.1% replied to the questionnaire on paper and 34.9% online. Each specific digital technology was used by between 93.2% and 6.8% of the dentists. Administrative technologies were generally used by more dentists than clinical technologies. Dentists had adopted an average number of 6.3 ± 2.3 technologies. 22.5% were low technology users (0 to 4 technologies), 46.2% were intermediate technology users (5 to 7 technologies) and 31.3% were high technology users (8 to 12 technologies). High technology users more frequently had a specialization (p<0.001), were younger on average (p=0.024), and worked more hours per week (p=0.003) than low technology users, and invested more hours per year in professional activities (p=0.026) than intermediate technology users. High technology use was also more common for dentists working in practices with a higher average number of patients per year (p<0.001), with more dentists working in the practice (p<0.001) and with more staff (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: With few exceptions, all dentists use some or a substantial number of digital technologies. Technology use is associated with various patterns of person-specific factors, and is higher when working in larger dental practices. The findings provide insight into the current state of digital technology adoption in dental practices. Further exploration why some dentists are more reluctant to adopt technologies than others is valuable for the dental profession's agility in adjusting to technological developments.