Skip to main content
placeholder image

How do dentists understand evidence and adopt it in practice?

Journal Article


Download full-text (Open Access)

Abstract


  • Although there is now a large evidence-based dentistry literature, previous investigators have shown that dentists often consider research evidence irrelevant to their practice. To understand why this is the case, we conducted a qualitative study.

    Objective: Our aim was to identify how dentists define evidence and how they adopt it in practice.

    Methods: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Ten dentists working in eight dental practices were interviewed about their experience and work processes while adopting evidence-based preventive care. Analysis involved transcript coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation.

    Results: Findings revealed that dentists’ direct observations – referred to as clinical evidence – provided the most tangible and trusted evidence in practice and during discussions with colleagues. Dentists described a detailed process used to gather, compare and implement clinical evidence. This process began when they were exposed to novelty in daily practice and proceeded through self-driven testing, producing clinical or tangible evidence that clinicians could use in practice.

    Conclusion: Based on these findings, we propose an alternative to the linear form of knowledge transfer commonly represented in the literature.

UOW Authors


  •   Sbaraini, Alexandra (external author)
  •   Carter, Stacy
  •   Evans, R Wendell (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Sbaraini, A., Carter, S. M. & Evans, R. (2012). How do dentists understand evidence and adopt it in practice?. Health Education Journal, 71 (2), 195-204.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84859948858

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4718&context=sspapers

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/3709

Has Global Citation Frequency


Number Of Pages


  • 9

Start Page


  • 195

End Page


  • 204

Volume


  • 71

Issue


  • 2

Place Of Publication


  • United Kingdom

Abstract


  • Although there is now a large evidence-based dentistry literature, previous investigators have shown that dentists often consider research evidence irrelevant to their practice. To understand why this is the case, we conducted a qualitative study.

    Objective: Our aim was to identify how dentists define evidence and how they adopt it in practice.

    Methods: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Ten dentists working in eight dental practices were interviewed about their experience and work processes while adopting evidence-based preventive care. Analysis involved transcript coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation.

    Results: Findings revealed that dentists’ direct observations – referred to as clinical evidence – provided the most tangible and trusted evidence in practice and during discussions with colleagues. Dentists described a detailed process used to gather, compare and implement clinical evidence. This process began when they were exposed to novelty in daily practice and proceeded through self-driven testing, producing clinical or tangible evidence that clinicians could use in practice.

    Conclusion: Based on these findings, we propose an alternative to the linear form of knowledge transfer commonly represented in the literature.

UOW Authors


  •   Sbaraini, Alexandra (external author)
  •   Carter, Stacy
  •   Evans, R Wendell (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Sbaraini, A., Carter, S. M. & Evans, R. (2012). How do dentists understand evidence and adopt it in practice?. Health Education Journal, 71 (2), 195-204.

Scopus Eid


  • 2-s2.0-84859948858

Ro Full-text Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4718&context=sspapers

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/3709

Has Global Citation Frequency


Number Of Pages


  • 9

Start Page


  • 195

End Page


  • 204

Volume


  • 71

Issue


  • 2

Place Of Publication


  • United Kingdom