If my informal and unscientific poll of dentists is correct, Dr. Average Dentist knows very little about ‘Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General.’
When is good news not necessarily good news? When it doesn’t get published. Until last month, Denver’s two independent newspapers were locked in a pitched battle for circulation supremacy. During that period, The University of Colorado’s Health Science Center, attempting to improve its community image, approached the competing newspapers asking what they could do to receive some favorable press.
"Little" was the response. Good news doesn’t sell newspapers. Now, a misappropriation of Medicare funds or a botched medical procedure—that’s acceptable reading material, but don’t try to get space for anything less.
Too much "good" news—could this be the problem that haunts professional acceptance of the "Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General"?
Released to its various publics in May 2000, "Oral Health in America" was the first surgeon general’s report to be specifically focused on oral health.
JADA’s special report on "Oral Health in America" (page 1721) is an executive summary tailored to the interests of the practicing dentist. The full document, representing a three-year effort by hundreds of consulting experts, was released with great fanfare by the surgeon general’s office seven months ago.
Its good news: the United States has seen great gains in oral health by almost all of its citizens. Its bad news: disparities in disease and treatment opportunities still exist, especially among indigent children and older adults.
Major communications campaigns to reach all communities of interest with these messages followed the report’s release. A California dentist assisted in securing reports in 24 daily newspapers, 30 television stations and 18 radio stations. Other major venues such as the annual scientific sessions of the American Association of Dental Research and the American Public Health Association exposed public health workers and dental researchers to components of the surgeon general’s report.
The desired outcome of this publicity would be support of programs that make oral health an integral component of general health. This goal would be realized through the creation of public/private partnerships dedicated to actions that address this purpose. The involvement of the dental profession in these activities is essential.
But if my informal and unscientific poll of dentists is correct, Dr. Average Dentist knows very little about this report. When speaking before a group of 51 dentists attending a continuing education course last month in Colorado, I asked how many had heard of the surgeon general’s report and what their thoughts were regarding its contents. Only three could recollect hearing or reading about the report—and none was conversant with its recommendations.
This is not good news. While Colorado is not necessarily representative of the universe of U.S. dentists, those assembled for this continuing education course would be expected to be more knowledgeable on matters of dental importance than their nonparticipating counterparts.
The contents of this document are too important to be relegated to a shelf. Yet it appears that the traditional means of exposure aren’t working. Is it because the report’s good news doesn’t sell newspapers and its bad news isn’t bad enough to print?
Perhaps the surgeon general’s report will not join past documents that sit on shelves or in boxes. I hope it won’t. But I have doubts. If it fails to garner the attention it deserves, it sends a negative message to those engaged in similar efforts.
As a member of the oversight committee for the ADA’s Future of Dentistry, or FOD, Initiative, I am concerned that the output of its 60-plus consultants, who are working to develop a document to guide the profession for the next 15 years, could suffer the same fate.
Insight into dentistry’s future—along with action plans that direct the profession to a desired outcome—is critical to the profession’s future success. Plans to ensure that the FOD’s recommendations get into the hands and head of each ADA member should be an integral component of the initiative. Unfortunately, the present FOD’s scope of work ends with the submission of the report to the 2001 House of Delegates.
To stimulate discussion of this critical issue, I am proposing a unique dissemination plan based on employing the three R’s: relevancy, repetition and reputation.
Creating relevancy for the FOD material should be the product of the various expert panels and the oversight committee. These FOD recommendations and subsequent action plans must be presented in a clearly understandable format to the practicing dental professional.
Repetition of the FOD message should follow. One or two media "mentions" appear to be insufficient. The dental professional must be offered information from the FOD report in a variety of different venues. Furthermore, the sender of the message must have the reputation as an opinion leader who can command the practitioner’s attention and respect.
I would suggest these people be chosen from three groups. The first of these would be former ADA trustees. During my tenure as editor, I have had the opportunity to work with many talented volunteers. When their terms are over, succession rules dictate that they be "gone." This policy is understandable, as it allows new leaders to emerge, but what a waste of knowledge and experience! I propose we solicit ex-trustees to serve as FOD advocates and to participate in the process of explaining the merits of FOD recommendations to ADA constituents.
To add to this group of opinion leaders, I would solicit the assistance of gurus on the lecture circuit. These people come in contact with thousands of dentists. Imagine the impact if each speaker would include some aspect of the FOD report in his or her presentations.
I also would advocate for a similar organization for retired dentists. With their numbers constantly increasing—estimates now exceed 30,000—even a 1 percent participation rate could produce a powerful advocate group for the FOD report.
Will these initiatives work? Will they ensure that the FOD’s recommendations reach all who have an interest? Only time will tell. But failing to make a special effort to share the future directions of our profession abdicates our responsibility to our constituents and their patients.
