Nigel Pitts

Bio: Nigel Pitts is an academic researcher from King's College London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Health care. The author has an hindex of 63, co-authored 326 publications receiving 14290 citations. Previous affiliations of Nigel Pitts include Abertay University & Prince Philip Dental Hospital.

The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries.

Abstract: This paper describes early findings of evaluations of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) conducted by the Detroit Center for Research on Oral Health Disparities (DCR-OHD). The lack of consistency among the contemporary criteria systems limits the comparability of outcomes measured in epidemiological and clinical studies. The ICDAS criteria were developed by an international team of caries researchers to integrate several new criteria systems into one standard system for caries detection and assessment. Using ICDAS in the DCR-OHD cohort study, dental examiners first determined whether a clean and dry tooth surface is sound, sealed, restored, crowned, or missing. Afterwards, the examiners classified the carious status of each tooth surface using a seven-point ordinal scale ranging from sound to extensive cavitation. Histological examination of extracted teeth found increased likelihood of carious demineralization in dentin as the ICDAS codes increased in severity. The criteria were also found to have discriminatory validity in analyses of social, behavioral and dietary factors associated with dental caries. The reliability of six examiners to classify tooth surfaces by their ICDAS carious status ranged between good to excellent (kappa coefficients ranged between 0.59 and 0.82). While further work is still needed to define caries activity, validate the criteria and their reliability in assessing dental caries on smooth surfaces, and develop a classification system for assessing preventive and restorative treatment needs, this early evaluation of the ICDAS platform has found that the system is practical; has content validity, correlational validity with histological examination of pits and fissures in extracted teeth; and discriminatory validity.

Performance and reproducibility of a laser fluorescence system for detection of occlusal caries in vitro.

Abstract: The diagnosis of occlusal caries at non-cavitated sites remains problematic, especially since clinical visual detection has limited sensitivity. Electrical methods of detection show considerable promise, but specificity is reduced. The aims of this in vitro study were: (1) to assess the validity of a new laser fluorescence device--the DIAGNOdent--(and compare the values with those of a fixed-frequency electrical device); (2) to determine the optimum cut-off points of the new device for different stages of the caries process, and (3) to assess the reproducibility of the new laser device. For validity and determination of optimum cut-off points, 105 extracted teeth with macroscopically intact occlusal surfaces were measured by a single examiner, using both the laser fluorescence device (on both moist and dried teeth) and an Electronic Caries Monitor. The teeth were subsequently examined histologically to determine the specificity, sensitivity and likelihood ratio at the D2 (caries extending through more than half of the enamel thickness) and D3 (caries involving dentin) levels. The values obtained for the laser device ranged from 0.72 to 0.87 (specificity), 0.76 to 0.87 (sensitivity) and 3.0 to 5.6 (likelihood ratio). Those for the ECM ranged from 0.64 to 0.78 (specificity), 0. 87 to 0.92 (sensitivity) and 2.4 to 4.1 (likelihood ratio). To determine intra- and interexaminer reproducibility of the DIAGNOdent, 11 dentists recorded two different measurements at the same site on a separate set of 83 extracted molar teeth, and these were compared using Cohen's kappa (at D2 and D3 levels) and Spearman's correlation coefficient. The average intra-examiner kappa scores were 0.88 (D2) and 0.90 (D3), with a Spearman correlation of 0.97. For interexaminer reproducibility, the average kappa values were 0.65 (D2) and 0.73 (D3), with a Spearman correlation of 0.84. It is concluded that for occlusal caries (1) the new laser device has a higher diagnostic validity than the ECM, and (2) in vitro, measurements using the device are highly reproducible. Thus, the laser device could be a valuable tool for the longitudinal monitoring of caries and for assessing the outcome of preventive interventions.

Global burden of oral diseases: emerging concepts, management and interplay with systemic health.

Abstract: Objectives This study presents the global burden of major oral diseases with an exegetical commentary on their current profiles, the critical issues in oral healthcare and future perspectives. Methods A narrative overview of current literature was undertaken to synthesise the contexts with critical elaboration and commentary. Results Oral disease is one of the most common public health issues worldwide with significant socio-economic impacts, and yet it is frequently neglected in public health policy. The oral data extracted from the Global Burden of Disease Study in 2010 (Murray et al, 2012) show that caries, periodontal disease, edentulism, oral cancer and cleft lip/palate collectively accounted for 18 814 000 disability-adjusted life-years; and the global burden of periodontal disease, oral cancer and caries increased markedly by an average of 45.6% from 1990 to 2010 in parallel with the major non-communicable diseases like diabetes by 69.0%. Oral diseases and non-communicable diseases are closely interlinked through sharing common risk factors (e.g. excess sugar consumption and tobacco use) and underlying infection/inflammatory pathways. Conclusions Oral disease remains a major public health burden worldwide. It is of great importance to integrate oral health into global health agenda via the common risk factor approach. The long-term sustainable strategy for global oral health should focus on health promotion and disease prevention through effective multidisciplinary teamwork.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Abstract: Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach

Abstract: Background: Evidence-based guidelines are often not implemented effectively with the result that best health outcomes are not achieved. This may be due to a lack of theoretical understanding of the processes involved in changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals. This paper reports the development of a consensus on a theoretical framework that could be used in implementation research. The objectives were to identify an agreed set of key theoretical constructs for use in (1) studying the implementation of evidence based practice and (2) developing strategies for effective implementation, and to communicate these constructs to an interdisciplinary audience. Methods: Six phases of work were conducted to develop a consensus: (1) identifying theoretical constructs; (2) simplifying into construct domains; (3) evaluating the importance of the construct domains; (4) interdisciplinary evaluation; (5) validating the domain list; and (6) piloting interview questions. The contributors were a “psychological theory” group (n = 18), a “health services research” group (n = 13), and a “health psychology” group (n = 30). Results: Twelve domains were identified to explain behaviour change: (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) social/professional role and identity, (4) beliefs about capabilities, (5) beliefs about consequences, (6) motivation and goals, (7) memory, attention and decision processes, (8) environmental context and resources, (9) social influences, (10) emotion regulation, (11) behavioural regulation, and (12) nature of the behaviour. Conclusions: A set of behaviour change domains agreed by a consensus of experts is available for use in implementation research. Applications of this domain list will enhance understanding of the behaviour change processes inherent in implementation of evidence-based practice and will also test the validity of these proposed domains.

Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks

Abstract: Implementation science has progressed towards increased use of theoretical approaches to provide better understanding and explanation of how and why implementation succeeds or fails. The aim of this article is to propose a taxonomy that distinguishes between different categories of theories, models and frameworks in implementation science, to facilitate appropriate selection and application of relevant approaches in implementation research and practice and to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue among implementation researchers. Theoretical approaches used in implementation science have three overarching aims: describing and/or guiding the process of translating research into practice (process models); understanding and/or explaining what influences implementation outcomes (determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories); and evaluating implementation (evaluation frameworks). This article proposes five categories of theoretical approaches to achieve three overarching aims. These categories are not always recognized as separate types of approaches in the literature. While there is overlap between some of the theories, models and frameworks, awareness of the differences is important to facilitate the selection of relevant approaches. Most determinant frameworks provide limited “how-to” support for carrying out implementation endeavours since the determinants usually are too generic to provide sufficient detail for guiding an implementation process. And while the relevance of addressing barriers and enablers to translating research into practice is mentioned in many process models, these models do not identify or systematically structure specific determinants associated with implementation success. Furthermore, process models recognize a temporal sequence of implementation endeavours, whereas determinant frameworks do not explicitly take a process perspective of implementation.