The sample frame for this study consisted of all U.S. dentists in the network who had previously participated in one or more network studies and who were in current practice with an active practice address (n=828). At the time of the survey, practices were predominately located in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. This project was approved by the human participants institutional review boards at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and all of the network’s regional centers. The reporting conforms to STROBE Guidelines (http://www.strobe-statement.org ).
The design was cross-sectional, consisting of a single administration of the IUS. The results of this questionnaire were combined with those of an Enrollment Questionnaire that all practitioners completed when they enrolled in the network. Both questionnaires are publicly available (please see the reference to this publication athttp://nationaldentalpbrn.org/peer-reviewed-publications.php ).
Thirty-four practitioners and network staff pre-tested a pilot version of the survey to assess the feasibility and comprehension of each questionnaire item. Items regarding electronic dental record use were taken from a study of clinical computing (15 (link)). Pilot testing started with network staff, across the regions and from different browsers, then in groups of 6–8 practitioners. The practitioners were queried regarding their experience taking survey, including access, clarity and ease of use. Pilot testing was considered complete when all practitioners in the group reported no problems with access, clarity or ability to complete. Subsequently, letters were sent by the main network administrative site to eligible practitioners, inviting them to participate, and to provide them with a unique identification number and log-in code to complete the online survey. Practitioners were asked to complete the questionnaire within three weeks. Non-respondents received a reminder letter after the fourth week. After an additional four weeks, a final reminder was sent, along with a printed version of the questionnaire allowing the option of completing the online or paper version. Network staff entered data received on mailed, paper versions through an online portal. Individuals who had not responded after a final three-week waiting period were considered non-respondents. Practitioners or their business entities could request a $50 remuneration as a gesture of appreciation for completing the questionnaire, of whom 92% did so. The practitioners who chose the mail option have access to the internet, but either chose not to complete the survey online because of personal preference or perhaps because of difficulty with network or connectivity problems. Prior to and during conduct of the IUS survey, the network staff received queries from practitioners and their staff regarding ability to logon or reconnect, for enrollment questionnaire and survey. These were few and were not documented, nor was the specific reason for using mail option rather than completing the survey online determined.
The overall intent of the IUS was to quantify the (1 (link)) use of electronic dental records; (2 ) use of rubber dam during root canal treatment; and (3 (link)) utilization of dental staff for specific clinical procedures, specifically, expanded-function auxiliaries. The questionnaire comprised 25 primary questions, with over 100 branching questions. The survey was completed between December 2010 and June 2011. Survey findings regarding use of electronic dental records, use of rubber dams during root canal procedures and utilization of dental staff have been published (16 (link)–18 ).
Bivariate cross-tabulations were calculated to examine associations of the following with completion of the survey by mail: 1) respondents and their practice characteristics and setting; and 2) their use of electronic dental records, use of rubber dams during root canal procedures, and 3) experience and attitude towards working with expanded-function auxiliaries. The chi-squared test was used to assess significance of the differences for bivariate analysis; logistic regression was used for adjusted analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the models. Statistical significance was assumed for a p-value less than 0.05. All analyses were performed using SAS (SAS/STAT version 9.3, SAS Institute, Inc.).
The design was cross-sectional, consisting of a single administration of the IUS. The results of this questionnaire were combined with those of an Enrollment Questionnaire that all practitioners completed when they enrolled in the network. Both questionnaires are publicly available (please see the reference to this publication at
Thirty-four practitioners and network staff pre-tested a pilot version of the survey to assess the feasibility and comprehension of each questionnaire item. Items regarding electronic dental record use were taken from a study of clinical computing (15 (link)). Pilot testing started with network staff, across the regions and from different browsers, then in groups of 6–8 practitioners. The practitioners were queried regarding their experience taking survey, including access, clarity and ease of use. Pilot testing was considered complete when all practitioners in the group reported no problems with access, clarity or ability to complete. Subsequently, letters were sent by the main network administrative site to eligible practitioners, inviting them to participate, and to provide them with a unique identification number and log-in code to complete the online survey. Practitioners were asked to complete the questionnaire within three weeks. Non-respondents received a reminder letter after the fourth week. After an additional four weeks, a final reminder was sent, along with a printed version of the questionnaire allowing the option of completing the online or paper version. Network staff entered data received on mailed, paper versions through an online portal. Individuals who had not responded after a final three-week waiting period were considered non-respondents. Practitioners or their business entities could request a $50 remuneration as a gesture of appreciation for completing the questionnaire, of whom 92% did so. The practitioners who chose the mail option have access to the internet, but either chose not to complete the survey online because of personal preference or perhaps because of difficulty with network or connectivity problems. Prior to and during conduct of the IUS survey, the network staff received queries from practitioners and their staff regarding ability to logon or reconnect, for enrollment questionnaire and survey. These were few and were not documented, nor was the specific reason for using mail option rather than completing the survey online determined.
The overall intent of the IUS was to quantify the (1 (link)) use of electronic dental records; (2 ) use of rubber dam during root canal treatment; and (3 (link)) utilization of dental staff for specific clinical procedures, specifically, expanded-function auxiliaries. The questionnaire comprised 25 primary questions, with over 100 branching questions. The survey was completed between December 2010 and June 2011. Survey findings regarding use of electronic dental records, use of rubber dams during root canal procedures and utilization of dental staff have been published (16 (link)–18 ).
Bivariate cross-tabulations were calculated to examine associations of the following with completion of the survey by mail: 1) respondents and their practice characteristics and setting; and 2) their use of electronic dental records, use of rubber dams during root canal procedures, and 3) experience and attitude towards working with expanded-function auxiliaries. The chi-squared test was used to assess significance of the differences for bivariate analysis; logistic regression was used for adjusted analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from the models. Statistical significance was assumed for a p-value less than 0.05. All analyses were performed using SAS (SAS/STAT version 9.3, SAS Institute, Inc.).
