Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMeursinge Reynders, R
dc.contributor.authorRonchi, L
dc.contributor.authorLadu, L
dc.contributor.authorDi Girolamo, N
dc.contributor.authorde Lange, J
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, N
dc.contributor.authorMickan, S
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-17T00:55:00Z
dc.date.available2017-07-17T00:55:00Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn2046-4053
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13643-016-0336-z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/172379
dc.description.abstractBackground: Numerous surveys have shown that orthodontic mini implants (OMIs) are underused in clinical practice. To investigate this implementation issue, we conducted a systematic review to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of OMIs for all potential stakeholders and (2) quantify these implementation constructs, i.e., record their prevalence. We also recorded the prevalence of clinicians in the eligible studies that do not use OMIs. Methods: Methods were based on our published protocol. Broad-spectrum eligibility criteria were defined. A barrier was defined as any variable that impedes or obstructs the use of OMIs and a facilitator as any variable that eases and promotes their use. Over 30 databases including gray literature were searched until 15 January 2016. The Joanna Briggs Institute tool for studies reporting prevalence and incidence data was used to critically appraise the included studies. Outcomes were qualitatively synthesized, and meta-analyses were only conducted when pre-set criteria were fulfilled. Three reviewers conducted all research procedures independently. We also contacted authors of eligible studies to obtain additional information. Results: Three surveys fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Seventeen implementation constructs were identified in these studies and were extracted from a total of 165 patients and 1391 clinicians. Eight of the 17 constructs were scored by more than 50 % of the pertinent stakeholders. Three of these constructs overlapped between studies. Contacting of authors clarified various uncertainties but was not always successful. Limitations of the eligible studies included (1) the small number of studies; (2) not defining the research questions, i.e., the primary outcomes; (3) the research design (surveys) of the studies and the exclusive use of closed-ended questions; (4) not consulting standards for identifying implementation constructs; (5) the lack of pilot testing; (6) high heterogeneity; (7) the risk of reporting bias; and (8) additional shortcomings. Meta-analyses were not possible because of these limitations. Two eligible studies found that respectively 56.3 % (952/1691) and 40.16 % (439/1093) of clinicians do not use OMIs. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the limitations of the eligible studies, their findings were important because (1) 17 implementation constructs were identified of which 8 were scored by more than 50 % of the stakeholders; (2) the various shortcomings showed how to improve on future implementation studies; and (3) the underuse of OMIs in the selected studies and in the literature demonstrated the need to identify, quantify, and address implementation constructs. Prioritizing of future research questions on OMIs with all pertinent stakeholders is an important first step and could redirect research studies on OMIs towards implementation issues. Patients, clinicians, researchers, policymakers, insurance companies, implant companies, and research sponsors will all be beneficiaries.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom163-1
dc.relation.ispartofpageto163-21
dc.relation.ispartofissue1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalSystematic Reviews
dc.relation.ispartofvolume5
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiomedical and clinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchDentistry not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode32
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode320399
dc.titleBarriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants in clinical practice: A systematic review
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© The Author(s) 2016. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorMickan, Sharon M.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record