Statistical Application and Cost Saving in a Dental Survey

Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires

BACKGROUND

Self-administered questionnaires are widely used to collect data in epidemiological research, but non-response reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. Finding ways to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires would improve the quality of epidemiological research.

OBJECTIVES

To identify effective strategies to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic databases up to December 2021 and manually searched the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews. We contacted the authors of all trials or reviews to ask about unpublished trials; where necessary, we also contacted authors to confirm the methods of allocation used and to clarify results presented.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of methods to increase response to postal or electronic questionnaires. We assessed the eligibility of each trial using pre-defined criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the trial participants, the intervention, the number randomised to intervention and comparison groups and allocation concealment. For each strategy, we estimated pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model. We assessed evidence for selection bias using Egger's weighted regression method and Begg's rank correlation test and funnel plot. We assessed heterogeneity amongst trial odds ratios using a Chi2 test and quantified the degree of inconsistency between trial results using the I2 statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Postal We found 670 eligible trials that evaluated over 100 different strategies of increasing response to postal questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity amongst trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response almost doubled when: using monetary incentives (odds ratio (OR) 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 1.99; heterogeneity I2 = 85%); using a telephone reminder (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.74); and when clinical outcome questions were placed last (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 4.24). The odds of response increased by about half when: using a shorter questionnaire (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.78); contacting participants before sending questionnaires (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.51; I2 = 87%); incentives were given with questionnaires (i.e. unconditional) rather than when given only after participants had returned their questionnaire (i.e. conditional on response) (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.74); using personalised SMS reminders (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.97 to 2.42); using a special (recorded) delivery service (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.08; I2 = 87%); using electronic reminders (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33); using intensive follow-up (OR 1.69; 95% CI 0.93 to 3.06); using a more interesting/salient questionnaire (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.66); and when mentioning an obligation to respond (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.22). The odds of response also increased with: non-monetary incentives (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.21; I2 = 80%); a larger monetary incentive (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.33); a larger non-monetary incentive (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); when a pen was included (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.50); using personalised materials (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.21; I2 = 57%); using a single-sided rather than a double-sided questionnaire (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25); using stamped return envelopes rather than franked return envelopes (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.33; I2 = 69%), assuring confidentiality (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.42); using first-class outward mailing (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21); and when questionnaires originated from a university (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.54). The odds of response were reduced when the questionnaire included questions of a sensitive nature (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). Electronic We found 88 eligible trials that evaluated over 30 different ways of increasing response to electronic questionnaires. We found substantial heterogeneity amongst trial results in half of the strategies. The odds of response tripled when: using a brief letter rather than a detailed letter (OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.79 to 5.94); and when a picture was included in an email (OR 3.05; 95% CI 1.84 to 5.06; I2 = 19%). The odds of response almost doubled when: using monetary incentives (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.71; I2 = 79%); and using a more interesting topic (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by half when: using non-monetary incentives (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.25 to 2.05); using shorter e-questionnaires (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.16; I2 = 94%); and using a more interesting e-questionnaire (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.26). The odds of response increased by a third when: offering survey results as an incentive (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.59); using a white background (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.56); and when stressing the benefits to society of response (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.78; I2 = 41%). The odds of response also increased with: personalised e-questionnaires (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32; I2 = 41%); using a simple header (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.48); giving a deadline (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); and by giving a longer time estimate for completion (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.64). The odds of response were reduced when: "Survey" was mentioned in the e-mail subject (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97); when the email or the e-questionnaire was from a male investigator, or it included a male signature (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80); and by using university sponsorship (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.69 to 1.01). The odds of response using a postal questionnaire were over twice those using an e-questionnaire (OR 2.33; 95% CI 2.25 to 2.42; I2 = 98%). Response also increased when: providing a choice of response mode (electronic or postal) rather than electronic only (OR 1.76 95% CI 1.67 to 1.85; I2 = 97%); and when administering the e-questionnaire by computer rather than by smartphone (OR 1.62 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Researchers using postal and electronic questionnaires can increase response using the strategies shown to be effective in this Cochrane review.

The use of behaviour management techniques amongst paediatric dentists working in the Arabian region: a cross-sectional survey study

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to investigate paediatric dental practitioners’ training and confidence in using dental behaviour management techniques in the Arabian region and to assess the factors influencing the application of advanced behaviour management techniques. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to paediatric dental practitioners in the Arabian region. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Pearson Chi Square.

Results

A total of 113 responses were obtained. Of these, the majority were from Egypt (45%, n = 51). Just over half of the respondents were registered as specialists at the country where they were practicing paediatric dentistry (53%, n = 60). The use of behaviour management techniques varied amongst participants with tell-show-do (95%, n = 107) and positive reinforcement (89%, n = 101) being the most routinely used techniques. The majority of participants reported using voice control (83%) and parental separation (68%) techniques. Hand over mouth exercise (HOME) was only used by 24% (n = 27) of participants, whilst just over half of the participants, 53%, reported using protective stabilisation. A significant association was shown between country of practice, country of obtaining paediatric dental training, speciality status and the use of advanced behaviour management techniques, whilst confidence in using HOME and sedation were associated with work setting and country of practice, respectively.

Conclusion

The use of advanced behaviour management techniques was found to be high amongst respondents in the Arabian region. The lack of training in using these techniques, however, is of concern. Further assessment of the factors affecting the use of and confidence in applying advanced behaviour management techniques in the Arabian region is needed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing habits in oral implant surgery in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey

Background

There seems to be no consensus on the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in oral implant surgery. The Dutch Association of Oral Implantology (NVOI) guidelines do not include a clear policy on prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions for oral implant surgery among healthy patients. The purpose of the study was to determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly prescribed in the Netherlands by general dentists, maxillofacial surgeons and oral implantologists in conjunction with oral implant surgery among healthy patients and to assess the type and amount of prophylactic antibiotic prescribed.

Methods

This observational cross-sectional study is based on a web survey. A questionnaire developed in the United States of America was translated and slightly adjusted for use in the Netherlands. It contained predominantly close-ended questions relating to demographics, qualifications, antibiotic type, prescription duration and dosage. An email including an introduction to the study and an individual link to the questionnaire was sent in February 2018 to a sample of 600 general dental practitioners and all 302 specialized dentists (oral implantologists, periodontists and maxillofacial surgeons) recognized by the NVOI. Overall, 902 questionnaires were anonymously sent. Finally, 874 potential participants were reached. Collected data were analyzed through descriptive statistics.

Results

In total, 218 (24.9%) participants responded to the questionnaire, including 45 females (20.8%) and 171 males (79.2%). Overall, 151 (69.9%) regularly placed oral implants. Of them, 79 (52.7%) prescribe antibiotics only in specific situations, 66 (43.7%) regularly, and 5 (3.3%) did not prescribe antibiotics at all. Overall, 83 participants who prescribe antibiotics did so both pre- and postoperatively (57.2%), 47 only preoperatively (32.4%) and 12 exclusively postoperatively (8.3%). A single dose of 2000 mg of amoxicillin orally one hour prior to surgery was the most prescribed preoperative regimen. The most frequently prescribed postoperative regimen was 500 mg of amoxicillin three times daily for five days after surgery. On average, participants prescribe a total of 7018 mg of antibiotics before, during or after oral implant surgery.

Conclusions

Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with oral implant surgery is prescribed in the Netherlands on a large scale, and recommendations based on the last published evidence are frequently not followed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis habits in oral implant surgery among dentists in Italy: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in conjunction with oral implant surgery remains inconsistent among different populations of dentists. The main objective of this study was to assess the current antibiotic prescribing habits of dentist in conjunction with oral implant surgery in Italy. The secondary objective was to assess the nature and amount (mg) of antibiotics prescriptions in order to evaluate whether any consensus has been reached and if the current recommendations are complied.

METHODS

Observational cross-sectional study based on a web-survey reported according to the STROBE guidelines. A questionnaire was sent via email to each registered member of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration (n = 400). The email included a link to the anonym web questionnaire developed on www.encuestafacil.com. It contained close-ended and some open-ended questions concerning demographics, antibiotic type, prescription duration and dosage. Collected data were analyzed using STATA® 14 software.

RESULTS

160 participants responded the survey (response rate = 40%). Approximately 84% routinely prescribed prophylactic antibiotics in conjunction with oral implant surgery, 15.6% prescribed antibiotics in certain situations and only 1 did not prescribe antibiotics at all. Overall, 116 respondents prescribed both pre- and postoperative antibiotics, 29 prescribed antibiotics only preoperatively and 14 prescribed antibiotics exclusively after surgery. Italian dentists prescribed an average amount of 10,331 mg antibiotics before, during or after oral implant surgery. Approximately, only 17% (n = 27) of the participants who prescribed antibiotics before oral implant surgery complied with the recommendations proposed by the latest publications (no more than 3 g of preoperative amoxicillin before oral implant surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists in Italy on a large scale prescribe antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with oral implant surgery among healthy patients. A high range of prophylactic regimens is prescribed and they are not adhering to the new science-based specifications. Guidelines focused on the indications for prophylactic antibiotics among healthy patients are required to prevent bacterial resistance, side effects and costs caused by overtreatment and the irrational use of antibiotics.

Knowledgeability, attitude, and practice behaviors of primary care providers toward managing patients' oral health care in medical practice: Wisconsin statewide survey

BACKGROUND

In this study, the authors sought to explore the receptivity, preparedness, and rates of adoption of integrated medical-dental models of care (MOCs) in the practice setting among primary care providers (PCPs) treating patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

The authors conducted an anonymous statewide survey targeting PCPs across a range of Wisconsin-based practice settings to evaluate knowledgeability, attitude, practice behaviors, and perceived barriers to oral health screening in a medical setting. Qualitative analytical approaches included thematic analyses applied to evaluate the status of and barriers to integrated medical-dental MOC adoption.

RESULTS

The integrated medical-dental MOC adoption rate was 34%. Top perceived barriers to integrated medical-dental MOC adoption included insurance coverage (71%) and care access (70%). A total of 39% indicated competency for educating patients about the association between DM and periodontitis. Although 72% of PCPs indicated optimal periodicity for oral health assessment as frequent, 39% reported frequently conducting such assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PCPs indicate receptivity to integrated medical-dental MOCs, PCPs identify suboptimal education, lack of adequate training in oral-systemic disease assessment, and barriers to oral health care access as barriers to integrated medical-dental MOC adoption.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Integrated medical-dental MOC adoption in care delivery to patients with DM remains below average. Interdisciplinary efforts and education are needed to address identified barriers to care integration.

Update on Electronic Dental Record and Clinical Computing Adoption Among Dental Practices in the United States

This study sought to re-characterize trends and factors affecting electronic dental record (EDR) and technologies adoption by dental practices and the impact of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) act on adoption rates through 2012. A 39-question survey was disseminated nationally over 3 months using a novel, statistically-modeled approach informed by early response rates to achieve a predetermined sample. EDR adoption rate for clinical support was 52%. Adoption rates were higher among: (1) younger dentists; (2) dentists ≤ 15 years in practice; (3) females; and (4) group practices. Top barriers to adoption were EDR cost/expense, cost-benefit ratio, electronic format conversion, and poor EDR usability. Awareness of the Federal HITECH incentive program was low. The rate of chairside computer implementation was 72%. Adoption of EDR in dental offices in the United States was higher in 2012 than electronic health record adoption rates in medical offices and was not driven by the HITECH program. Patient portal adoption among dental practices in the United States remained low.