Practitioner Participation in National Dental Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) Studies: 12-Year Results
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: This study examines practitioner participation over 12 years in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) studies and practitioner meetings, average length of participation, and association of practitioner- and practice-level characteristics with participation. Little information exists about practitioners' long-term participation in PBRNs. METHODS: The network conducted a retrospective analysis of practitioner participation in 3 main network activities during 2005 to 2017. Practitioners who completed an enrollment questionnaire, practiced in the United States, and either attended a network meeting or received an invitation to complete a questionnaire or clinical study were included in the analysis. Practitioners (n = 3669) met inclusion criteria. The network implemented 38 studies (28 clinical and 10 questionnaire), 23 of which (15 clinical and 8 questionnaire) met the criteria for the current analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 86% (N = 3148) participated in at least 1 network activity during 2005 to 2017. Questionnaire studies had the highest rate with 81% (N = 2963) completing at least 1, 21% (N = 762) completed at least 1 clinical study and 19% (N = 700) attended at least 1 network meeting. Among 1578 practitioners enrolled in the first 5 years of the Network launch, 20% (N = 320) participated in multiple network activities over 5 to 9 years, and 14% (N = 238) for 10 to 12 years. Practitioner characteristics associated with participation varied depending on the activity assessed. CONCLUSION: The network engaged practitioners in its research activities with relatively high participation rates over a 12-year period. Strategies employed by the network to engage practitioners may serve as a model for PBRN networks for other allied health professions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The National Dental PBRN has reported productivity based on practitioner engagement metrics but has not reported other measures of overall network scientific productivity, such as number of peer-reviewed publications and impact as measured by RCR.
“The National Dental PBRN has reported productivity based on the metrics of practitioner engagement (e.g., practitioner participation in studies, webinars, network activities that provide continuing education credit, presentations and publications, and practitioner meetings) [16,17], but has not reported other measures of overall network scientific productivity, such as the number of peer-reviewed”
From Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 21
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [21]Campbell-Voytal K, Daly JM, Nagykaldi ZJ, practice-based research networks: a case study. Clin Transl Sci. 2015; 8(6): 632– 637. 26602516 PMC5351116
- Authors
- Mungia, R., Funkhouser, E., Buchberg Trejo, M. K., Cohen, R., Reyes, S. C., Cochran, D. L., Makhija, S. K., Meyerowitz, C., Rindal, B. D., Gordan, V. V., Fellows, J. L., McCargar, J. D., McMahon, P. A., Gilbert, G. H., & National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group
- Affiliations
- Westat (United States) (US)
- The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 844-856
- ISSN
- 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7118
- PMC
- PMC6936735
- OpenAlex
- W2900116235
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 2.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (DE-22516)
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (U19-DE-22516, U19DE022516)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Dental Education, Practice, Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- practice-based research networks, practitioner participation, dentists, research participation rates, practitioner characteristics, network meetings, questionnaire survey
- MeSH terms
- Stakeholder Participation, Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Trials as Topic, Dentistry, Dentists, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, United States
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
