| Title |
Maxillofacial prosthodontics practice profile: a survey of non-United States prosthodontists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40463-017-0211-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nina Ariani, Harry Reintsema, Kathleen Ward, Cortino Sukotjo, Alvin G. Wee |
| Abstract |
This study surveyed non-United States maxillofacial prosthodontists (MFP) to determine their practice profile and rationale for pursuing an MFP career. Email addresses for the MFP were obtained from the International Society for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics, and International Academy for Oral Facial Rehabilitation. Emails with a link to the electronic survey program were sent to each participant. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U tests were used to investigate the influence of formal MFP training on professional activities and type of treatments provided. One hundred twelve respondents (response rate 39%) from 33 nationalities returned the survey. The top three reasons for pursuing an MFP career were personal satisfaction, prosthodontics residency exposure, and mentorship. The predominant employment setting was affiliation with a university (77%). There were significant differences between respondents with and without formal MFP training regarding provision of surgical treatments (P = 0.021) and dental oncology (P = 0.017). Most treatments were done together with otolaryngology, oral surgery (68%) and head and neck surgery (61%). Practitioners not affiliated with a university spent significantly more time in clinical practice (P = 0.002), whereas respondents affiliated with universities spent significantly more time in teaching/training (P = 0.008) and funded research (P = 0.015). Personal satisfaction is the most important factor in a decision to choose an MFP career. Most of the MFPs work at a university and within a multidisciplinary setting. There were differences regarding type of treatments provided by respondents with and without formal MFP training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 39% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Design | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2017.
All research outputs
#22,834,739
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#509
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,272
of 323,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.