Research | Published:

Disseminating research evidence: what matters to general dental practitioners?

BDJ volume 225, pages 413417 (14 September 2018) | Download Citation

Subjects

Key points

  • Explores different means through which research evidence is conveyed.

  • Introduces the reader to existing dissemination methods he/she might not be aware of, for instance toolkits, podcasts, narratives etc.

  • Stimulates the reader to explore artefacts that extend beyond conventional dissemination methods.

  • Explores the concept of evidence-based dentistry and its usefulness in clinical practice.

Abstract

Background

In the era of evidence-based practice, pressure is placed upon clinicians to stay updated and inform their practice. This appears to be challenging, in the light of the sheer volume of the existing research evidence and the reported gap between knowledge and clinical practice. Therefore, the need to develop more effective dissemination methods is evident if knowledge translation is to be promoted.

Aim

To explore how dentists perceive different existing and potential means of receiving and communicating research evidence.

Methods

This was a qualitative study conducted through one-to-one artefact-stimulated semi-structured interviews conducted among general dental practitioners working in three European countries. Nine GDPs were recruited through purposive sampling.

Results

Four themes emerged as qualities essential for an artefact. First, a pleasant-to-use artefact; being multiplatform, more visual, interactive and inclusive of a social component. Second, a usable form of evidence; being brief/timely, easy to remember, convenient to use and easily found. Third, a relevant content; being contextualised and practical/procedural. Fourth, robustness of the evidence; having a trustworthy source.

Conclusion

The findings of the study suggested that research dissemination requires artefacts that are pleasant to use, while conveying a usable form of evidence, which is perceived both as relevant and trustworthy.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , . Evidence-based practice vs. evidence-informed practice: what's the difference? Wound Care Can 2014; 12: 18–21.

  2. 2.

    , , . Evidence-based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725.

  3. 3.

    . So much research evidence, so little dissemination and uptake: mixing the useful with the pleasing. Evid Based Ment Health 2001; 4: 3–5.

  4. 4.

    , , . Clinical practice variation. Med J Aust 2010; 193(8 Suppl): S97–S99.

  5. 5.

    National Institute of Clinical Studies. Identifying barriers to evidence uptake. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2006.

  6. 6.

    , , et al. Guideline uptake is influenced by six implementability domains for creating and communicating guidelines: a realist review. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 498–509.

  7. 7.

    , , et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10: Cd004398.

  8. 8.

    , . Podcasts as tools in introductory environmental studies. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2009; 10: 19–24.

  9. 9.

    , , , . Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2014; 14: 121.

  10. 10.

    , , . Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Med Educ 2006; 6: 41.

  11. 11.

    , , et al. The Impact of Social Media on Dissemination and Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Longitudinal Observational Study. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17: e193.

  12. 12.

    , , , . Narrative as a knowledge translation tool for facilitating impact: translating physical activity knowledge to disabled people and health professionals. Health Psychol 2015; 34: 303–313.

  13. 13.

    , , . Dissemination of Evidence-Based Behavioral Advice via Video in Pediatric Primary Care: An Acceptance and Utilization Study. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2016; 55: 122–128.

  14. 14.

    , , , , , . What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 164.

  15. 15.

    , , , . The influence of a professional physician network on clinical decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2013; 93: 496–503.

  16. 16.

    . A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science 1994; 5: 14–37.

  17. 17.

    , . Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed 'mindlines?' Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ 2004; 329: 1013.

  18. 18.

    , , , , . Paradigms and characteristics of a good qualitative research. World App Sci J 2011; 12: 2082–2087.

  19. 19.

    . Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edition. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2014.

  20. 20.

    , , , , , . Chronic Temporomandibular Disorders: disability, pain intensity and fear of movement. J Headache Pain 2016; 17: 103.

  21. 21.

    American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on Fluoride Therapy. 2014. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  22. 22.

    Cochrane. Podcast: Do tobacco cessation interventions provided during substance abuse treatment or recovery help tobacco users to quit? 2017. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  23. 23.

    British Dental Association. Oral cancer recognition toolkit. 2017. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  24. 24.

    . Evidence based orthodontics: Kevin O' Brien's orthodontic blog. 2017. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  25. 25.

    Styleitaliano. Styleitaliano. 2017. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  26. 26.

    , . The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In Glaser B, Straus A eds. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Adline, 1967.

  27. 27.

    , . Knowledge 'Translation' as social learning: negotiating the uptake of research-based knowledge in practice. BMC Med Educ 2016; 16: 76.

  28. 28.

    , , et al. 'It's a feel. That's what a lot of our evidence would consist of': public health practitioners' perspectives on evidence. Eval Health Prof 2011; 34: 278–296.

  29. 29.

    . Teaching and Learning Styles – VARK strategies. Vark, 2012.

  30. 30.

    . Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: what do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

  31. 31.

    . Toward a 3P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocat Learn 2013; 6: 11–36.

  32. 32.

    . The practice of policy making. Evid Policy 2011; 7: 127–136.

  33. 33.

    NICE. Type 2 diabetes: prevention in people at high risk. 2017. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  34. 34.

    , , et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26: 13–24.

  35. 35.

    , , , , . Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71–72.

  36. 36.

    . Social Learning Theory. 1971. Available at (accessed May 2018).

  37. 37.

    . Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science 2011; 22: 602–620.

  38. 38.

    , , , , . Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004; 82: 581–629.

  39. 39.

    . From knowledge transfer to knowledge translation: Applying research to practice. Occupational Ther Now 2005; 7: 11–14.

  40. 40.

    , , . Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers' perceptions. BMJ Open 2012; 2: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220.

  41. 41.

    , . Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000; 320: 50–52.

  42. 42.

    , . Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

  43. 43.

    , , , . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204: 235–239.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Charles University in Prague, Orthodontic Department, Kateřinská 32, Prague, 12801, Czech Republic;

    • M. Papakostopoulou
  2. Queen Mary University of London, Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Dental Hospital, New Road, London, E1 2AD

    • D. Hurst

Authors

  1. Search for M. Papakostopoulou in:

  2. Search for D. Hurst in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Papakostopoulou.

Supplementary information

Videos

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information S1

    Listen to the author talk about the key findings in this paper in the associated video abstract. Available in the supplementary information online

About this article

Publication history

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.737