RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Practitioner Engagement in Activities of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN): 7-Year Results
JF The Journal of the American Board of Family
                Medicine
JO J Am Board Fam Med
FD American Board of Family Medicine
SP 687
OP 697
DO 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.190339
VO 33
IS 5
A1 Rahma Mungia
A1 Ellen Funkhouser
A1 Sonia K. Makhija
A1 Stephanie C. Reyes
A1 Rachel A. Cohen
A1 David L. Cochran
A1 Cyril Meyerowitz
A1 D. Brad Rindal
A1 Valeria V. Gordan
A1 Jeffrey L. Fellows
A1 Meredith Trejo
A1 Thomas W. Oates
A1 Jason D. McCargar
A1 Pamela A. McMahon
A1 Gregg H. Gilbert
A1 National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group
YR 2020
UL http://www.jabfm.org/content/33/5/687.abstract
AB 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.