Dentists’ Information Needs and Opinions on Accessing Patient Information via Health Information Exchange: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of medical and dental records is gaining significance over the past 2 decades. However, few studies have evaluated the opinions of practicing dentists on patient medical histories. Questions remain on dentists' information needs; their perception of the reliability of patient-reported medical history; satisfaction with the available information and the methods to gather this information; and their attitudes to other options, such as a health information exchange (HIE) network, to collect patient medical history. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine Indiana dentists' information needs regarding patients' medical information and their opinions about accessing it via an HIE. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to Indiana Dental Association members to assess their current medical information-retrieval approaches, the information critical for dental care, and their willingness to access or share information via an HIE. We used descriptive statistics to summarize survey results and multivariable regression to examine the associations between survey respondents' characteristics and responses. RESULTS: Of the 161 respondents (161/2148, 7.5% response rate), 99.5% (n=160) respondents considered patients' medical histories essential to confirm no contraindications, including allergies or the need for antibiotic prophylaxis during dental care and other adverse drug events. The critical information required were medical conditions or diagnosis, current medications, and allergies, which were gathered from patient reports. Furthermore, 88.2% (n=142) of respondents considered patient-reported histories reliable; however, they experienced challenges obtaining information from patients and physicians. Additionally, 70.2% (n=113) of respondents, especially those who currently access an HIE or electronic health record, were willing to use an HIE to access or share their patient's information, and 91.3% (n=147) shared varying interests in such a service. However, usability, data accuracy, data safety, and cost are the driving factors in adopting an HIE. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' medical histories are essential for dentists to optimize dental care, especially for those with chronic conditions. In addition, most dentists are interested in using an HIE to access patient medical histories. The findings from this study can provide an alternative option for improving communications between dental and medical professionals and help the health information technology system or tool developers identify critical requirements for more user-friendly designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".