Developing oral health risk assessment as routine practice during early stages of clinical careers: A cross-sectional study of dental students using the NoMAD questionnaire.
NoMAD
dental education
health communication
health risk communication
normalization process theory
Journal
European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
ISSN: 1600-0579
Titre abrégé: Eur J Dent Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9712132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
30
05
2019
revised:
15
10
2019
accepted:
22
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
18
1
2020
entrez:
26
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Effective implementation of healthcare initiatives is of key importance for ensuring high-quality clinical and health outcomes. Using Normalization Process Theory, this study investigates the implementation behaviour of dental students in relation to a novel oral health risk assessment tool. It considers the impact of advancing learning on normalisation of innovative healthcare practice. Students completed the NoMAD (normalisation of complex interventions-measure development) questionnaire and an additional scale to assess perceived value of the oral health risk assessment tool, after having used the tool for nearly one academic year. The sample comprised third- (n = 75), fourth- (n = 77) and fifth-year (n = 37) students. Differences between groups in relation to the four generative processes of normalisation were analysed using ANOVA. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated between groups. Multiple linear regression was undertaken to investigate the impact of normalisation level on value/utility judgements. There were significant group differences for three of the four generative processes of normalisation (coherence, cognitive participation and reflexive monitoring). Third- and fourth-year students were highly similar but these groups showed lower normalisation compared to fifth years. Normalisation assessment predicted perceived value and utility of the oral health risk assessment tool. The findings suggest that dental students show lower normalisation of novel tools at earlier stages in their course, possibly due to increased cognitive load, and that perceived value and utility of a novel tool is related to increased normalisation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Effective implementation of healthcare initiatives is of key importance for ensuring high-quality clinical and health outcomes. Using Normalization Process Theory, this study investigates the implementation behaviour of dental students in relation to a novel oral health risk assessment tool. It considers the impact of advancing learning on normalisation of innovative healthcare practice.
METHODS
METHODS
Students completed the NoMAD (normalisation of complex interventions-measure development) questionnaire and an additional scale to assess perceived value of the oral health risk assessment tool, after having used the tool for nearly one academic year. The sample comprised third- (n = 75), fourth- (n = 77) and fifth-year (n = 37) students. Differences between groups in relation to the four generative processes of normalisation were analysed using ANOVA. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated between groups. Multiple linear regression was undertaken to investigate the impact of normalisation level on value/utility judgements.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were significant group differences for three of the four generative processes of normalisation (coherence, cognitive participation and reflexive monitoring). Third- and fourth-year students were highly similar but these groups showed lower normalisation compared to fifth years. Normalisation assessment predicted perceived value and utility of the oral health risk assessment tool.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that dental students show lower normalisation of novel tools at earlier stages in their course, possibly due to increased cognitive load, and that perceived value and utility of a novel tool is related to increased normalisation.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
169-176Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : CS-2014-14-011
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Economic and Social Research Council
ID : RES-062-23-3274
Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Brownstein SA, Murad A, Hunt RJ. Implementation of new technologies in U.S. Dental school curricula. J Dent Educ. 2015;79(3):259-264.
Dragan IF, Dalessandri D, Johnson LA, Tucker A, Walmsley AD. Impact of scientific and technological advances. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018;22(S1):17-20.
Bjørndal L, Reit C. The adoption of new endodontic technology amongst Danish general dental practitioners. Int Endod J. 2005;38(1):52-58.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press; London, UK: Collier Macmillan; 1983.
DePaola DP. The revitalization of U.S. Dental education. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(2 suppl):28-42.
Parashos P, Messer HH. The diffusion of innovation in dentistry: a review using rotary nickel-titanium technology as an example. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2006;101(3):395-401.
Sohn W, Ismail AI, Tellez M. Efficacy of educational interventions targeting primary care providers' practice behaviors: an overview of published systematic reviews. J Public Health Dent. 2004;64(3):164-172.
Bissett SM, Presseau J, Rapley T, Preshaw PM. Uptake of best practice recommendations in the management of patients with diabetes and periodontitis: a cross-sectional survey of dental clinicians. Br Dent J. 2019;226:131.
Jenkins SM, Hayes SJ, Dummer PMH. A study of endodontic treatment carried out in dental practice within the UK. Int Endod J. 2001;34(1):16-22.
Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50.
Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, et al. Achieving change in primary care-causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci. 2016;11:40.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Commun Psychol. 2008;41(3-4):327-350.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Hlth. 2011;38(2):65-76.
Linton JD. Implementation research: State of the art and future directions. Technovation. 2002;22(2):65-79.
Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10 :53.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629.
Grol RPTM, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007;85(1):93-138.
Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72.
May CR, Cummings A, Girling M, et al. Using normalization process theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13:80.
Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10 :155.
Kim JS, Chung GH. Implementing innovations within organizations: a systematic review and research agenda. Innovation. 2017;19(3):372-399.
Ross J, Stevenson F, Lau R, Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update). Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):146.
Kalyuga S, Ayres P, Chandler P, Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1):23-31.
van Merrienboer JJG, Kirschner PA, Kester L. Taking the load off a learner's mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1):5-13.
Clarke T, Ayres P, Sweller J. The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2005;53(3):15-24.
May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535-554.
Finch TL, Girling M, May CR, et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: Part 2 - validation of the nomad instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (npt). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):135-135.
Fontana M, Zero DT. Assessing patients' caries risk. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(9):1231-1239.
Asimakopoulou K, Newton JT, Daly B, Kutzer Y, Ide M. The effects of providing periodontal disease risk information on psychological outcomes - a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(4):350-355.
Department of Health. Dental contract reform programme: proposals for stage 2 piloting. London, UK: Department of Health; 2012.
NHS Business Service Agency. Dental Contract Reform Handbook. Eastbourne, UK: NHS Business Service Agency; 2017.
Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS, et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: Part 1 - development of the nomad instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (npt). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):133-133.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Sweller J, Australian Council for Educational R. Instructional Design. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press; 1999.
Kagan J. A trio of concerns. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2(4):361-376.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879-903.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539-569.