Haugejorden O, Nielsen W A
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1987 Aug;15(4):205-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1987.tb00520.x.
The aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained using two different methods of data collection about caries preventive services provided in general dental practice. A questionnaire was mailed to a random national sample of 479 dentists resident in Norway in January 1985. The sample was divided into two groups by random allocation. All dentists, irrespective of group, were requested to give background information. One group, comprising 287 dentists (GR), was asked to complete a separate form for every adult patient (greater than or equal to 20 yr) treated in the course of 1 day. The demographic characteristics and dental visiting habits of the patients, as well as the number of teeth present, caries lesions and preventive services rendered were recorded. The other group, 192 dentists (GE), was requested to make general estimates of the time spent on caries prevention and the proportion of patients receiving various types of caries preventive services. The dentists were unaware of the methodologic aspect of the survey and everyone received one reminder in order to guarantee anonymity. The estimation method (GE) did not give the expected advantage over the registration method (GR) in response rate (51.7% vs 46.2%, P greater than 0.40), and gave a gross overestimation of the frequency with which adult patients received different types of caries preventive procedures (P less than 0.005). Thus, even though the estimates of the proportion of total treatment time spent on caries prevention were comparable for the two methods, and the estimation approach is labor-saving, it cannot be recommended for the collection of data on caries prevention in the dental office.
本研究的目的是比较采用两种不同数据收集方法所获得的有关一般牙科诊疗中提供的龋齿预防服务的结果。1985年1月，一份问卷被邮寄给挪威随机抽取的479名牙医。样本通过随机分配分为两组。所有牙医，无论所属组，均被要求提供背景信息。一组由287名牙医组成（GR组），被要求为其在一天内治疗的每名成年患者（大于或等于20岁）填写一份单独的表格。记录患者的人口统计学特征和看牙习惯，以及现存牙齿数量、龋损情况和所提供的预防服务。另一组192名牙医（GE组），被要求对花在龋齿预防上的时间以及接受各类龋齿预防服务的患者比例进行总体估计。牙医们并不知晓调查的方法学方面，并且每人都收到一次提醒以确保匿名性。在回复率方面，估计方法（GE组）并未比登记方法（GR组）展现出预期优势（51.7%对46.2%，P大于0.40），并且对成年患者接受不同类型龋齿预防程序的频率进行了严重高估（P小于0.005）。因此，尽管两种方法对花在龋齿预防上的总治疗时间比例的估计相当，且估计方法节省人力，但在牙科诊所收集龋齿预防数据时，不推荐使用该方法。
