Qualitative evaluation reveals obstacles and benefits for practitioners in dental practice-based research networks, indicating paths for improvement.
Background/Objectives: Dental Practice-Based Research Networks (DPBRNs) bridge the gap between academic research and private dental practice, addressing questions relevant to everyday medical care. Despite their growing scientific output, little research has explored the experiences of practitioners engaged in these networks. Our study therefore aims to investigate these practitioners’ perspectives in order to identify strategies for improving investigator recruitment, training and data quality in future DPBRN studies. Methods: The qualitative methodology was chosen, and our study adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with dentists who had participated in a DPBRNs study and transcribed before being thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke’s framework. MaxQDA 2022 software was used to facilitate coding of the verbatim quotes. Results: Three major themes emerged: (1) obstacles to participation, including time constraints, difficulties in patient recruitment, and a perceived disconnect between academia and private practice; (2) facilitators of engagement, such as strong leadership, logistical support, and a collaborative research environment; and (3) personal benefits, such as skill development, breaking professional routines, and counteracting stereotypes about private practitioners’ involvement in research. Conclusions: The findings align with existing literature on medical Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs), highlighting logistical and motivational barriers while also emphasizing the importance of social and professional benefits. Notably, although financial compensation or credits for continuing professional development are frequently cited as motivators for research participation, these were not significant concerns for our participants. This study sheds light on the experiences of health practitioners in PBRNs, offering recommendations to overcome challenges through strategies such as accessible training, practical incentives and collaboration opportunities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Szönyi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: