Harnessing the power of collective intelligence in dentistry: a pilot study in Victoria, Australia.
Collective intelligence
Dentistry
Diagnosis
Treatment plan
Wisdom of crowds
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 06 2023
20 06 2023
Historique:
received:
29
11
2022
accepted:
31
05
2023
medline:
22
6
2023
pubmed:
21
6
2023
entrez:
20
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In many dental settings, diagnosis and treatment planning is the responsibility of a single clinician, and this process is inevitably influenced by the clinician's own heuristics and biases. Our aim was to test whether collective intelligence increases the accuracy of individual diagnoses and treatment plans, and whether such systems have potential to improve patient outcomes in a dental setting. This pilot project was carried out to assess the feasibility of the protocol and appropriateness of the study design. We used a questionnaire survey and pre-post study design in which dental practitioners were involved in the diagnosis and treatment planning of two simulated cases. Participants were provided the opportunity to amend their original diagnosis/treatment decisions after viewing a consensus report made to simulate a collaborative setting. Around half (55%, n = 17) of the respondents worked in group private practices, however most practitioners (74%, n = 23) did not collaborate when planning treatment. Overall, the average practitioners' self-confidence score in managing different dental disciplines was 7.22 (s.d. 2.20) on a 1-10 scale. Practitioners tended to change their mind after viewing the consensus response, particularly for the complex case compared to the simple case (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). Practitioners' confidence ratings were also significantly higher (p < 0.05) after viewing the consensus for complex case. Our pilot study shows that collective intelligence in the form of peers' opinion can lead to modifications in diagnosis and treatment planning by dentists. Our results lay the foundations for larger scale investigations on whether peer collaboration can improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment planning and, ultimately, oral health outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In many dental settings, diagnosis and treatment planning is the responsibility of a single clinician, and this process is inevitably influenced by the clinician's own heuristics and biases. Our aim was to test whether collective intelligence increases the accuracy of individual diagnoses and treatment plans, and whether such systems have potential to improve patient outcomes in a dental setting.
METHODS
This pilot project was carried out to assess the feasibility of the protocol and appropriateness of the study design. We used a questionnaire survey and pre-post study design in which dental practitioners were involved in the diagnosis and treatment planning of two simulated cases. Participants were provided the opportunity to amend their original diagnosis/treatment decisions after viewing a consensus report made to simulate a collaborative setting.
RESULTS
Around half (55%, n = 17) of the respondents worked in group private practices, however most practitioners (74%, n = 23) did not collaborate when planning treatment. Overall, the average practitioners' self-confidence score in managing different dental disciplines was 7.22 (s.d. 2.20) on a 1-10 scale. Practitioners tended to change their mind after viewing the consensus response, particularly for the complex case compared to the simple case (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). Practitioners' confidence ratings were also significantly higher (p < 0.05) after viewing the consensus for complex case.
CONCLUSION
Our pilot study shows that collective intelligence in the form of peers' opinion can lead to modifications in diagnosis and treatment planning by dentists. Our results lay the foundations for larger scale investigations on whether peer collaboration can improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment planning and, ultimately, oral health outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37340358
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03091-y
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03091-y
pmc: PMC10280903
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
405Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ophthalmic Genet. 2020 Apr;41(2):151-158
pubmed: 32281467
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Aug 2;113(31):8777-82
pubmed: 27432950
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Jan 22;21(1):39
pubmed: 33482794
Int Dent J. 2022 Aug;72(4):463-469
pubmed: 34600746
J Health Econ. 2004 May;23(3):543-64
pubmed: 15120470
J Dent Educ. 2016 May;80(5):569-77
pubmed: 27139208
Acta Odontol Scand. 2010 Mar;68(2):65-79
pubmed: 20141362
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Mar 13;13(6):
pubmed: 36980383
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e190096
pubmed: 30821822
Postgrad Med J. 2018 Apr;94(1110):216-219
pubmed: 29317467
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Mar 1;206:37-41
pubmed: 26774827
Ann Oncol. 2006 Mar;17(3):457-60
pubmed: 16322114
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
pubmed: 17835457
Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2013 Jan-Mar;117(1):113-8
pubmed: 24505902
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Aug 9;19(1):158
pubmed: 31399099
Aust Dent J. 2022 Mar;67 Suppl 1:S24-S30
pubmed: 35505612
Breast J. 2012 Sep;18(5):459-63
pubmed: 22776015
Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Jun;10(3):247-60
pubmed: 9661064
J Health Organ Manag. 2003;17(1):37-52
pubmed: 12800279
Diagnosis (Berl). 2016 Jun;3(2):49-59
pubmed: 28758055
Br J Orthod. 1994 Feb;21(1):65-8
pubmed: 8199167
Med Educ. 2016 Apr;50(4):400-8
pubmed: 26995480
Oper Dent. 2016 Sep;41(S7):S79-S87
pubmed: 27689932
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Sep;23(9):727-31
pubmed: 24742777
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 3;13(4):e0194128
pubmed: 29614070
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Oct;10(8):769-72
pubmed: 18215197
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 12;10(8):e0134269
pubmed: 26267331