Practitioner Engagement in Activities of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN): 7-Year Results
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To 1) quantify practitioner activities of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (Network) for which Continuing Education (CE) credits were received (study training, videos, webinars, meetings, and symposia); 2) quantify practitioner coauthoring Network publications and presentations; and 3) test whether practitioner characteristics were associated with participation in these activities. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 4361 practitioners who enrolled in the Network between April 12, 2012 and October 12, 2018. RESULTS: Overall, 59% (n = 2586) of practitioners earned CE credit from the Network; among these, 68% (n = 1757) from a video, 38% (n = 993) attended an annual Network meeting, 31% (n = 798) due to training for a Network clinical study, 9% (n = 226) attended a national symposium, and 7% (n = 170) participated in a Network webinar. Members of 2 large group practices earned on average more CEs than practitioners from other practice settings. Four percent (n = 159) of practitioners coauthored a Network presentation or publication. Practitioners who received their dental degree before 2000, were general practitioners, or were members of 2 large group practices, were more likely to have coauthored a publication or presentation. CONCLUSION: This Network used a broad range of activities to engage community practitioners. These activities were successful in sustaining a high level of practitioner engagement in clinical research and its relevance to everyday clinical practice.
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 Network has produced 193 peer-reviewed publications to date.
“The Network has produced 193 peer-reviewed publications to date [20].”
From Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. (2022) · cites this paper as [20]
The Discussion (page not available) reports that the Network produced 156 peer-reviewed scientific publications during the 2005–2019 funding period, not 193. The cited paper does not give a later total of 193. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe 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 [16]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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 11
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [18]Rindal DB, Gilbert GH, Carcelen C, National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group. Feasibility and acceptance of oral HPV detection in the dental office: results from the National Dental PBRN. J Am Dent Assoc 2019; 150: 130– 9. 30691571 PMC6800070
- Authors
- Mungia, R., Funkhouser, E., Makhija, S. K., Reyes, S. C., Cohen, R. A., Cochran, D. L., Meyerowitz, C., Rindal, D. B., Gordan, V. V., Fellows, J. L., Trejo, M., Oates, T. W., McCargar, J. D., McMahon, P. A., & Gilbert, G. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 687-697
- ISSN
- 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7118
- PMC
- PMC7895471
- OpenAlex
- W3087990151
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- 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 (R03DE022089, U19DE028717, U19DE022516)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Dental Education, Practice, Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- dentists, practitioner engagement, continuing education credits, co-authorship, research participation, clinical research networks, practice-based research
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Dentists, Education, Dental, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Societies, Medical, United States, Dental Research
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
