Talk:Dentistry in rural Alaska

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dentistry Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Self-citation[edit]

I have a self-citation COI with RTI International, a non-profit research organization who has published a study on the DHAT program in a peer-reviewed journal. I've whipped up a draft below of how the study could be added to the article, which I will keep working on in a bit. I wanted to post here first in case I was adding undue emphasis on the source or if there were other COI objections or comments. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists from RTI International and the University of North Carolina performed a study in June 2011 to evaluate Alaska's DHAT initiative on behalf of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. The study found that "Alaska's dental therapists are now providing safe, competent and appropriate care in their scope of practice." According to the study, the DHAT program provided broader access to care and contributed to the local economy, whereas the itinerant dental care system had been failing for fifty years.

Sources

Wetterhall, Scott; Burrus, Barri; Shugars, Daniel; Bader, James (2011). "Cultural Context in the Effort to Improve Oral Health Among Alaska Native People: The Dental Health Aide Therapist Model". American Journal of Public Health. 101 (10): 1836–1840. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300356. ISSN 0090-0036.
Rakos, Barbro (July 11, 2013). "Dental health aides make impact around state". The Bristol Bay Times. Retrieved August 5, 2010.

Thoughts[edit]

The abstract supports the claims that the study was done and published in the American Journal of Public Health in October of 2011. It also states that oral health among Alaska's native population has been inadequate for more than 50 years. The Bristol Bay Times articles, which is a reliable source and supports the claims that DHAT has proviced greater better access to care and contribute to the economy "because of the new health care provider jobs it's produced." The news article and study infer that it was the right approach culturally but I don't see it explicitly stated in the article. The journal shows satisfaction survey data being very high (at least 8 out of 10) in different areas. I can see how someone might think the claim that it "was the right approach culturally" might be an issue but I'm fine with the statement.

As for undue weight, this doesn't seem to be an issue at all. Dental health aides are mentioned several times throughout the article and the program is interesting in that it's the only state that has allowed such a program due to how well it's worked. The study just supports that seemingly uncontested view and uses a scientific process to do so.

I support this change. The only thing I don't see is where it's stated that the study took two years but I may have missed something. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made some edits along those lines and moved it into article-space. I don't feel my COI is that significant in this case and it seems to be smooth sailing so far, so I might be a little more bold in the future. I'll take it in baby steps. CorporateM (Talk) 18:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]