Promoting Tobacco Abstinence Among Older Adolescents in Dental Clinics

Interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by dental professionals

BACKGROUND

Dental professionals are well placed to help their patients stop using tobacco products. Large proportions of the population visit the dentist regularly. In addition, the adverse effects of tobacco use on oral health provide a context that dental professionals can use to motivate a quit attempt.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, adverse events and oral health effects of tobacco cessation interventions offered by dental professionals.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register up to February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by dental professionals in the dental practice or community setting, with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and extracted data from included trials. We resolved disagreements by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from all tobacco use (e.g. cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarised as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I² statistic. We summarised secondary outcomes narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty clinical trials involving 14,897 participants met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Sixteen studies assessed the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco-use cessation in dental clinics and four assessed this in community (school or college) settings. Five studies included only smokeless tobacco users, and the remaining studies included either smoked tobacco users only, or a combination of both smoked and smokeless tobacco users. All studies employed behavioural interventions, with four offering nicotine treatment (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes) as part of the intervention. We judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, one to be at unclear risk of bias, and the remaining 16 studies to be at high risk of bias. Compared with usual care, brief advice, very brief advice, or less active treatment, we found very low-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural support provided by dental professionals, comprising either one session (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.41; I² = 66%; four studies, n = 6328), or more than one session (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.11; I² = 61%; seven studies, n = 2639), on abstinence from tobacco use at least six months from baseline. We found moderate-certainty evidence of benefit from behavioural interventions provided by dental professionals combined with the provision of NRT or e-cigarettes, compared with no intervention, usual care, brief, or very brief advice only (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.82; I² = 0%; four studies, n = 1221). We did not detect a benefit from multiple-session behavioural support provided by dental professionals delivered in a high school or college, instead of a dental setting (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65; I² = 83%; three studies, n = 1020; very low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported adverse events or oral health outcomes, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that quit rates increase when dental professionals offer behavioural support to promote tobacco cessation. There is moderate-certainty evidence that tobacco abstinence rates increase in cigarette smokers if dental professionals offer behavioural support combined with pharmacotherapy. Further evidence is required to be certain of the size of the benefit and whether adding pharmacological interventions is more effective than behavioural support alone. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence so as to preclude the risk of detection bias. There is insufficient evidence on whether these interventions lead to adverse effects, but no reasons to suspect that these effects would be specific to interventions delivered by dental professionals. There was insufficient evidence that interventions affected oral health.

Brief Motivational Interventions: Strategies for Successful Management of Complex, Nonadherent Dental Patients

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based approach to resolving patient ambivalence to change. MI techniques can be effectively used by dentists in assessing and managing substance use risk and may add minimal time to the patient interview. Although MI's greatest utility has been in the area of improving general oral hygiene in order to reduce caries and other preventable conditions, its use in addressing controlled substance risk is well established in other health care disciplines. These techniques do not require special training in mental health assessment and can be effectively used by dentists and dental hygienists.

Primary Care-Relevant Interventions for Tobacco and Nicotine Use Prevention and Cessation in Children and Adolescents: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Interventions to discourage the use of tobacco products (including electronic nicotine delivery systems or e-cigarettes) among children and adolescents may help decrease tobacco-related illness and injury.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 review on primary care-relevant interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PsyINFO, and EMBASE (September 1, 2012, to June 25, 2019), with surveillance through February 7, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary care-relevant studies; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies of children and adolescents up to age 18 years for cessation and age 25 years for prevention. Trials comparing behavioral or pharmacological interventions with no or a minimal tobacco use intervention control group (eg, usual care, attention control, wait list) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Tobacco use initiation; tobacco use cessation; health outcomes; harms.

RESULTS

Twenty-four randomized clinical trials (N = 44 521) met inclusion criteria. Behavioral interventions were associated with decreased likelihood of cigarette smoking initiation compared with control interventions at 7 to 36 months' follow-up (13 trials, n = 21 700; 7.4% vs 9.2%; relative risk [RR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.92]). There was no statistically significant difference between behavioral interventions and controls in smoking cessation when trials were restricted to smokers (9 trials, n = 2516; 80.7% vs 84.1% continued smoking; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93-1.01]). There were no significant benefits of medication on likelihood of smoking cessation in 2 trials of bupropion at 26 weeks (n = 523; 17% [300 mg] and 6% [150 mg] vs 10% [placebo]; 24% [150 mg] vs 28% [placebo]) and 1 trial of nicotine replacement therapy at 12 months (n = 257; 8.1% vs 8.2%). One trial each (n = 2586 and n = 1645) found no beneficial intervention effect on health outcomes or on adult smoking. No trials of prevention in young adults were identified. Few trials addressed prevention or cessation of tobacco products other than cigarettes; no trials evaluated effects of interventions on e-cigarette use. There were few trials of pharmacotherapy, and they had small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Behavioral interventions may reduce the likelihood of smoking initiation in nonsmoking children and adolescents. Research is needed to identify effective behavioral interventions for adolescents who smoke cigarettes or who use other tobacco products and to understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy.

Primary Care Interventions for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the US. An estimated annual 480 000 deaths are attributable to tobacco use in adults, including from secondhand smoke. It is estimated that every day about 1600 youth aged 12 to 17 years smoke their first cigarette and that about 5.6 million adolescents alive today will die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. Although conventional cigarette use has gradually declined among children in the US since the late 1990s, tobacco use via electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is quickly rising and is now more common among youth than cigarette smoking. e-Cigarette products usually contain nicotine, which is addictive, raising concerns about e-cigarette use and nicotine addiction in children. Exposure to nicotine during adolescence can harm the developing brain, which may affect brain function and cognition, attention, and mood; thus, minimizing nicotine exposure from any tobacco product in youth is important.

OBJECTIVE

To update its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of primary care interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents. The current systematic review newly included e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.

POPULATION

This recommendation applies to school-aged children and adolescents younger than 18 years.

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that primary care-feasible behavioral interventions, including education or brief counseling, to prevent tobacco use in school-aged children and adolescents have a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that there is insufficient evidence to determine the balance of benefits and harms of primary care interventions for tobacco cessation among school-aged children and adolescents who already smoke, because of a lack of adequately powered studies on behavioral counseling interventions and a lack of studies on medications.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians provide interventions, including education or brief counseling, to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care-feasible interventions for the cessation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. (I statement).

Evidence-based prevention programs targeting youth mental and behavioral health in primary care: A systematic review

The objectives of this systematic review were to: 1) identify evidence-based youth (i.e., infancy, pre-school age, school age, and adolescence) mental and behavioral health disorder preventive interventions conducted in or offered by primary care settings, and 2) describe these interventions' characteristics, efficacy, and clinical involvement. Randomized controlled trials that targeted the prevention of mental or behavioral health outcomes for youth and had a connection to primary care were included. The PRISMA guidelines were utilized for two phases: 1) searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases in January 2017; and 2) searching United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Systematic Reviews in November 2017. The two phases revealed 504 and 58 potential articles, respectively. After removal of duplicates, screening of abstracts, and full-text reviews, 19 interventions (infancy: n = 2, pre-school age: n = 3, school age: n = 6, adolescence: n = 8) were included: 1) 10 interventions described in 17 articles from the databases, and 2) 9 interventions described in 11 articles from the USPSTF reviews. The included interventions capitalized on primary care settings as a natural entry point to engage youth and families into interventions without requiring a large amount of clinic involvement. Commonalities of efficacious interventions and recommendations for future research are discussed. The authors encourage primary care providers, mental and behavioral health providers, and/or public health researchers to continue developing and testing preventive interventions, or adapting existing interventions, to be implemented in primary care.

Tobacco cessation interventions for young people

BACKGROUND

Most tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are effective for adults can also help adolescents to quit. This is the update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register in June 2017. This includes reports for trials identified in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsyclNFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individually and cluster-randomized controlled trials recruiting young people, aged under 20 years, who were regular tobacco smokers. We included any interventions for smoking cessation; these could include pharmacotherapy, psycho-social interventions and complex programmes targeting families, schools or communities. We excluded programmes primarily aimed at prevention of uptake. The primary outcome was smoking status after at least six months' follow-up among those who smoked at baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of candidate trials and extracted data. We evaluated included studies for risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodology and grouped them by intervention type and by the theoretical basis of the intervention. Where meta-analysis was appropriate, we estimated pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, based on the quit rates at six months' follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials involving more than 13,000 young people met our inclusion criteria (26 individually randomized controlled trials and 15 cluster-randomized trials). We judged the majority of studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Interventions were varied, with the majority adopting forms of individual or group counselling, with or without additional self-help materials to form complex interventions. Eight studies used primarily computer or messaging interventions, and four small studies used pharmacological interventions (nicotine patch or gum, or bupropion). There was evidence of an intervention effect for group counselling (9 studies, risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.77), but not for individual counselling (7 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.39), mixed delivery methods (8 studies, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66) or the computer or messaging interventions (pooled RRs between 0.79 and 1.18, 9 studies in total). There was no clear evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions, although confidence intervals were wide (nicotine replacement therapy 3 studies, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.58; bupropion 1 study RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.02). No subgroup precluded the possibility of a clinically important effect. Studies of pharmacotherapies reported some adverse events considered related to study treatment, though most were mild, whereas no adverse events were reported in studies of behavioural interventions. Our certainty in the findings for all comparisons is low or very low, mainly because of the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions, imprecision in the effect size estimates, and issues with risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence that either behavioural support or smoking cessation medication increases the proportion of young people that stop smoking in the long-term. Findings are most promising for group-based behavioural interventions, but evidence remains limited for all intervention types. There continues to be a need for well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials of interventions for this population of smokers.

Motivational Interviewing to Promote Oral Health in Adolescents

PURPOSE

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a counseling strategy to help people change their behaviors. This single-blinded randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of MI in improving adolescents' oral health.

METHODS

Fifteen secondary schools were randomly assigned to three groups: (I) prevailing health education, (II) MI, and (III) MI coupled with interactive dental caries risk assessment (MI + RA). Adolescents (n = 512) with unfavorable oral health behaviors (infrequent toothbrushing and/or frequent snacking) were recruited; 161, 163, and 188 in groups I-III, respectively. Participants in the three groups received their respective interventions. At baseline and after 6 and 12 months, participants completed a questionnaire on their oral health self-efficacy and behaviors. Their oral hygiene (dental plaque score) and dental caries (number of decayed surfaces/teeth status) were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with group I, subjects in groups II and III were more likely to reduce their snacking frequency (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals {CIs}]: 7.12 [1.80-28.16] and 11.17 [2.90-42.98], respectively) and increase their toothbrushing frequency (odds ratios [95% CIs]: 5.26 [2.28-12.16] and 11.45 [4.99-26.26], respectively) after 12 months. Taking group I as a reference, groups II and III had lower number of new carious teeth △D _{ICDAS II 1-6}MFT (β [95% CI]: -.24 [-.44 to -.04] and -.31 [-.51 to -.11], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

MI was more effective than prevailing health education strategy in eliciting positive changes in adolescents' oral health behaviors and preventing dental caries.

Behaviour change counselling for tobacco use cessation and promotion of healthy lifestyles: a systematic review

AIM

To systematically assess the efficacy of oral health behaviour change counselling for tobacco use cessation (TUC) and the promotion of healthy lifestyles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic Reviews, Randomized (RCTs), and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) were identified through an electronic search of four databases complemented by manual search. Identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of studies were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality assessment of the included publications was performed according to the AMSTAR tool for the assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

A total of seven systematic reviews were included. With the exception of inadequate oral hygiene, the following unhealthy lifestyles related with periodontal diseases were investigated: tobacco use, unhealthy diets, harmful use of alcohol, physical inactivity, and stress. Brief interventions for TUC were shown to be effective when applied in the dental practice setting while evidence for dietary counselling and the promotion of other healthy lifestyles was limited or non-existent.

CONCLUSIONS

While aiming to improve periodontal treatment outcomes and the maintenance of periodontal health current evidence suggests that tobacco use brief interventions conducted in the dental practice setting were effective thus underlining the rational for behavioural support.

State-of-the-art office-based interventions to eliminate youth tobacco use: the past decade

Tobacco use and tobacco smoke exposure are among the most important preventable causes of premature disease, disability, and death and therefore constitute a major pediatric health concern. The pediatric primary care setting offers excellent opportunities to prevent tobacco use in youth and to deliver cessation-related treatment to youth and parents who use tobacco. This report updates a "state-of-the-art" article published a decade ago on office-based interventions to address these issues. Since then there has been marked progress in understanding the nature, onset, and trajectories of tobacco use and nicotine addiction in youth with implications for clinical practice. In addition, clinicians need to remain abreast of emerging nicotine delivery systems, such as electronic cigarettes, that may influence uptake or continuation of smoking. Although evidence-based practice guidelines for treating nicotine addiction in youth are not yet available, research continues to build the evidence base toward that goal. In the interim, practical guidelines are available to assist clinicians in addressing nicotine addiction in the pediatric clinical setting. This article reports current practices in addressing tobacco in pediatric primary care settings. It reviews our increasing understanding of youth nicotine addiction, summarizes research efforts on intervention in the past decade and additional research needed going forward, and provides practical guidelines for pediatric health care providers to integrate tobacco use prevention and treatment into their clinical practice. Pediatric providers can and should play an important role in addressing tobacco use and dependence, both in the youth they care for and in parents who use tobacco.

Tobacco cessation interventions for young people

BACKGROUND

Most tobacco control programmes for adolescents are based around prevention of uptake, but teenage smoking is still common. It is unclear if interventions that are effective for adults can also help adolescents to quit. This is the second update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of strategies that help young people to stop smoking tobacco.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register in February 2013. This includes reports for trials identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsyclNFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized controlled trials and other controlled trials recruiting young people, aged less than 20, who were regular tobacco smokers. We included any interventions; these could include pharmacotherapy, psycho-social interventions and complex programmes targeting families, schools or communities. We excluded programmes primarily aimed at prevention of uptake. The primary outcome was smoking status after at least six months follow-up among those who smoked at baseline.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the eligibility of candidate trials and extracted data. Included studies were evaluated for risk of bias using standard Cochrane methodology. Where meta-analysis was appropriate, we estimated pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method, based on the quit rates at longest follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials involving approximately 6000 young people met our inclusion criteria (12 cluster-randomized controlled trials, 14 randomized controlled trials and 2 controlled trials). The majority of studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Many studies combined components from various theoretical backgrounds to form complex interventions.The majority used some form of motivational enhancement combined with psychological support such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and some were tailored to stage of change using the transtheoretical model (TTM). Three trials based mainly on TTM interventions achieved moderate long-term success, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.56 at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.01). The 12 trials that included some form of motivational enhancement gave an estimated RR of 1.60 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.01). None of the 13 individual trials of complex interventions that included cognitive behavioural therapy achieved statistically significant results, and results were not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. There was a marginally significant effect of pooling six studies of the Not on Tobacco programme (RR of 1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71), although three of the trials used abstinence for as little as 24 hours at six months as the cessation outcome. A small trial testing nicotine replacement therapy did not detect a statistically significant effect. Two trials of bupropion, one testing two doses and one testing it as an adjunct to NRT, did not detect significant effects. Studies of pharmacotherapies reported some adverse events considered related to study treatment, though most were mild, whereas no adverse events were reported in studies of behavioural interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Complex approaches show promise, with some persistence of abstinence (30 days point prevalence abstinence or continuous abstinence at six months), especially those incorporating elements sensitive to stage of change and using motivational enhancement and CBT. Given the episodic nature of adolescent smoking, more data is needed on sustained quitting. There were few trials with evidence about pharmacological interventions (nicotine replacement and bupropion), and none demonstrated effectiveness for adolescent smokers. There is not yet sufficient evidence to recommend widespread implementation of any one model. There continues to be a need for well-designed adequately powered randomized controlled trials of interventions for this population of smokers.

Interventions for tobacco cessation in the dental setting

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use has significant adverse effects on oral health. Oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting have a unique opportunity to increase tobacco abstinence rates among tobacco users.

OBJECTIVES

This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions for tobacco cessation delivered by oral health professionals and offered to cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the dental office or community setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966-November 2011), EMBASE (1988-November 2011), CINAHL (1982-November 2011), Healthstar (1975-November 2011), ERIC (1967-November 2011), PsycINFO (1984-November 2011), National Technical Information Service database (NTIS, 1964-November 2011), Dissertation Abstracts Online (1861-November 2011), Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE, 1995-November 2011), and Web of Science (1993-November 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and pseudo-randomized clinical trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions conducted by oral health professionals in the dental office or community setting with at least six months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for potential inclusion and abstracted data from included trials. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The primary outcome was abstinence from smoking or all tobacco use (for users of smokeless tobacco) at the longest follow-up, using the strictest definition of abstinence reported. The effect was summarised as an odds ratio, with correction for clustering where appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using an inverse variance fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Included studies assessed the efficacy of interventions in the dental office or in a community school or college setting. Six studies evaluated the effectiveness of interventions among smokeless tobacco (ST) users, and eight studies evaluated interventions among cigarette smokers, six of which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. All studies employed behavioral interventions and only one required pharmacotherapy as an interventional component. All studies included an oral examination component. Pooling all 14 studies suggested that interventions conducted by oral health professionals can increase tobacco abstinence rates (odds ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44 to 2.03) at six months or longer, but there was evidence of heterogeneity (I² = 61%). Within the subgroup of interventions for smokers, heterogeneity was smaller (I² = 51%), but was largely attributable to a large study showing no evidence of benefit. Within this subgroup there were five studies which involved adult smokers in dental practice settings. Pooling these showed clear evidence of benefit and minimal heterogeneity (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.35, 5 studies, I² = 3%) but this was a posthoc subgroup analysis. Amongst the studies in smokeless tobacco users the heterogeneity was also attributable to a large study showing no sign of benefit, possibly due to intervention spillover to control colleges; the other five studies indicated that interventions for ST users were effective (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation conducted by oral health professionals incorporating an oral examination component in the dental office or community setting may increase tobacco abstinence rates among both cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Differences between the studies limit the ability to make conclusive recommendations regarding the intervention components that should be incorporated into clinical practice, however, behavioral counselling (typically brief) in conjunction with an oral examination was a consistent intervention component that was also provided in some control groups.

Practices participating in a dental PBRN have substantial and advantageous diversity even though as a group they have much in common with dentists at large

BACKGROUND

Practice-based research networks offer important opportunities to move recent advances into routine clinical practice. If their findings are not only generalizable to dental practices at large, but can also elucidate how practice characteristics are related to treatment outcome, their importance is even further elevated. Our objective was to determine whether we met a key objective for The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN): to recruit a diverse range of practitioner-investigators interested in doing DPBRN studies.

METHODS

DPBRN participants completed an enrollment questionnaire about their practices and themselves. To date, more than 1100 practitioners from the five participating regions have completed the questionnaire. The regions consist of: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates, and Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden). We tested the hypothesis that there are statistically significant differences in key characteristics among DPBRN practices, based on responses from dentists who participated in DPBRN's first network-wide study (n = 546).

RESULTS

There were statistically significant, substantive regional differences among DPBRN-participating dentists, their practices, and their patient populations.

CONCLUSION

Although as a group, participants have much in common with practices at large; their substantial diversity offers important advantages, such as being able to evaluate how practice differences may affect treatment outcomes, while simultaneously offering generalizability to dentists at large. This should help foster knowledge transfer in both the research-to-practice and practice-to-research directions.