Cited by 82Health Policy Implementation ScienceSmoking Behavior and CessationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Assessing implementation difficulties in tobacco use prevention and cessation counselling among dental providers

Open access
Amemori, Masamitsu, Michie, Susan, Korhonen, Tellervo, Murtomaa, Heikki, Kinnunen, Taru H·2011·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use adversely affects oral health. Clinical guidelines recommend that dental providers promote tobacco abstinence and provide patients who use tobacco with brief tobacco use cessation counselling. Research shows that these guidelines are seldom implemented, however. To improve guideline adherence and to develop effective interventions, it is essential to understand provider behaviour and challenges to implementation. This study aimed to develop a theoretically informed measure for assessing among dental providers implementation difficulties related to tobacco use prevention and cessation (TUPAC) counselling guidelines, to evaluate those difficulties among a sample of dental providers, and to investigate a possible underlying structure of applied theoretical domains. METHODS: A 35-item questionnaire was developed based on key theoretical domains relevant to the implementation behaviours of healthcare providers. Specific items were drawn mostly from the literature on TUPAC counselling studies of healthcare providers. The data were collected from dentists (n = 73) and dental hygienists (n = 22) in 36 dental clinics in Finland using a web-based survey. Of 95 providers, 73 participated (76.8%). We used Cronbach's alpha to ascertain the internal consistency of the questionnaire. Mean domain scores were calculated to assess different aspects of implementation difficulties and exploratory factor analysis to assess the theoretical domain structure. The authors agreed on the labels assigned to the factors on the basis of their component domains and the broader behavioural and theoretical literature. RESULTS: Internal consistency values for theoretical domains varied from 0.50 ('emotion') to 0.71 ('environmental context and resources'). The domain environmental context and resources had the lowest mean score (21.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.2 to 25.4) and was identified as a potential implementation difficulty. The domain emotion provided the highest mean score (60%; 95% CI, 55.0 to 65.0). Three factors were extracted that explain 70.8% of the variance: motivation (47.6% of variance, α = 0.86), capability (13.3% of variance, α = 0.83), and opportunity (10.0% of variance, α = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a theoretically informed approach to identifying possible implementation difficulties in TUPAC counselling among dental providers. This approach provides a method for moving from diagnosing implementation difficulties to designing and evaluating interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-6-50

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 1967 New York: McGraw Hill 226 Assessment of reliability

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amemori, M., Michie, S., Korhonen, T., Murtomaa, H., & Kinnunen, T. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Amemori, Masamitsu
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2011-05-26
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
50-50
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145824848
Cited by
82
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätiö
  • Academy of Finland (1130966)
  • Juho Vainion Säätiö
  • Suomen Hammaslääkäriseura Apollonia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
tobacco use prevention, tobacco cessation counselling, dental professionals, dentists, dental hygienists, implementation barriers, Theoretical Domains Framework, provider behavior, guideline adherence, motivation, capabilities, opportunity, environmental context and resources, emotions, questionnaire development
MeSH terms
Counseling, Dental Hygienists, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Finland, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Patient Education as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Practice Patterns, Dentists', Guideline Adherence, Tobacco Use Cessation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review