Improving oral healthcare using academic detailing – design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies

Abstract

Background: Academic detailing (AD) is a defined form of educational outreach that can be deployed to intrinsically motivate practitioners towards improving quality of care. This paper describes the design of the ADVOCATE Field Studies. This proof of concept study aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and usefulness of AD, reinforced with feedback information to promote prevention-oriented, patient-centred and evidence-based oral healthcare delivery by general dental practitioners (GDPs).

Methods: Six groups of GDPs will be recruited; two groups of six to eight GDPs in each of three countries – the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. GDPs will meet for four Academic Detailing Group (ADG) meetings for open discussions using comparative feedback data to stimulate debate about their dental practice performance and care delivery. Group meetings will be moderated using the AD methodology. Qualitative data will be collected through focus group interviews, an online discussion forum, field notes and debriefs of ADG meetings and analysed by conventional content analysis using MaxQDA software.

Discussion: The results of the study will provide novel information on the feasibility, perceived acceptability and usefulness of AD and feedback data for GDPs to improve oral healthcare delivery.

Keywords:

• Academic detailing
• oral healthcare
• dentistry
• evidence based care
• prevention
• patient-centred care
• intrinsic motivation

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the contributors to the ADVOCATE project: the ADVOCATE Scientific Advisory Board – Stephen Birch, Martin Chalkley, Roger Ellwood, Ekatarina Fabrikant, Jeffery Fellows, Christopher Fox, Frank Fox, Dympna Kavanagh, John Lavis, Roger Matthews, Mariano Sanz, Paula Vassalo and Sandra White; the ADVOCATE General Assembly – Barry Egberts, Lisa Bøge Christensen, Gail Douglas, Kenneth Eaton, Gerard Gavin, Geert van der Heijden, Jochem Walker, Stefan Listl, Gabor Nagy, Karen O’Hanlon, Andrew Taylor, Helen Whelton, Noel Woods; the ADVOCATE Ethics Advisory Board – Mary Donnelly, Eckert Feifel, Jon Fistein, Evert-Ben van Veen and Agnes Zana; the ADVOCATE project coordinator, Anita Blakeston; and the coworkers of the ADVOCATE project. We specially thank Kasper Rosing and Olivier Kalmus in liaising with the local ethics committee in Germany and Denmark.

Ethics approval: This study was approved by the VU medical ethical committee in the Netherlands, the Heidelberg ethics committee in Germany and the Copenhagen Videnskabsetiske Komiteer in Denmark and the Danish data protection agency.

Availability of data and materials: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

The ADVOCATE project has received funding from the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement 635183: http://advocateoralhealth.com.