Using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand implementation of a pragmatic clinical trial in Public Dental Service in Norway.
Clinical service research
Evidence-based practice
Public Dental Service
Theoretical Domains Framework
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jul 2021
16 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
08
01
2021
accepted:
28
05
2021
entrez:
17
7
2021
pubmed:
18
7
2021
medline:
21
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most dental research in Norway has traditionally been conducted by universities, and the involvement of clinicians in research projects has not been a common practice. The aim of the present study was to identify behavioral factors that influence effective implementation of a pragmatic clinical trial in the Public Dental Service (PDS) in Norway and to understand which of these factors result in higher patient recruitment. Dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants at nine Public Dental Service clinics in three counties in Norway involved in an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial were asked to complete an electronically distributed questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Thirty-seven out of 69 dentists and dental hygienists (54 %) and seventeen out of 57 dental assistants (30 %) answered the questionnaire. "Knowledge" was the domain with the highest mean response, suggesting strong confidence in personal knowledge and practical skills among the clinicians. Together with "beliefs about consequences," "organizational resources," and "environmental context," "knowledge" was the one of five domains identified as important behavioral determinants in patient recruitment to clinical trials by dental professionals. The findings suggest that TDF was useful to understand factors affecting implementation of clinical trials in PDS and that several factors such as clinical relevance of trial to be implemented, organizational resources, and communication with the research team require more attention when planning and implementing clinical trials in PDS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Most dental research in Norway has traditionally been conducted by universities, and the involvement of clinicians in research projects has not been a common practice. The aim of the present study was to identify behavioral factors that influence effective implementation of a pragmatic clinical trial in the Public Dental Service (PDS) in Norway and to understand which of these factors result in higher patient recruitment.
METHODS
METHODS
Dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants at nine Public Dental Service clinics in three counties in Norway involved in an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial were asked to complete an electronically distributed questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-seven out of 69 dentists and dental hygienists (54 %) and seventeen out of 57 dental assistants (30 %) answered the questionnaire. "Knowledge" was the domain with the highest mean response, suggesting strong confidence in personal knowledge and practical skills among the clinicians. Together with "beliefs about consequences," "organizational resources," and "environmental context," "knowledge" was the one of five domains identified as important behavioral determinants in patient recruitment to clinical trials by dental professionals.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that TDF was useful to understand factors affecting implementation of clinical trials in PDS and that several factors such as clinical relevance of trial to be implemented, organizational resources, and communication with the research team require more attention when planning and implementing clinical trials in PDS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34271927
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06590-2
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06590-2
pmc: PMC8283977
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
698Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Br Dent J. 2008 Jul 26;205(2):E4; discussion 86-7
pubmed: 18596821
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016 Aug 23;4:136-140
pubmed: 29736476
Eur J Oral Sci. 2012 Dec;120(6):531-8
pubmed: 23167470
Br Dent J. 2014 Nov;217(10):E22
pubmed: 25415040
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;58(2):107-12
pubmed: 15680740
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 May;30(4):184, 186-7
pubmed: 19441734
Br Dent J. 2015 Aug 28;219(4):159-63
pubmed: 26315174
Caries Res. 2015;49(3):243-50
pubmed: 25765077
Br Dent J. 1999 Jul 24;187(2):95-100
pubmed: 10464989
Int Endod J. 2016 Mar;49(3):224-6
pubmed: 26849486
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 23;10(2):e0117537
pubmed: 25706629
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 12;11(1):136
pubmed: 27733174
Implement Sci. 2018 Apr 6;13(1):54
pubmed: 29625615
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 15;9:11
pubmed: 24423394
Implement Sci. 2014 Mar 19;9:33
pubmed: 24641907
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 19;11(1):142
pubmed: 27760551
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;43(3):272-81
pubmed: 25656749
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 20;18(1):568
pubmed: 30029660
J Dent. 2015 Nov;43(11):1323-9
pubmed: 26327559
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:38
pubmed: 22531013