The Journal of Orthodontics: A cross-sectional survey of British Orthodontic Society members

Jennings, Rosalind; Seehra, Jadbinder; Cobourne, Martyn T

OBJECTIVE: To survey the opinion of British Orthodontic Society members on the Journal of Orthodontics. DESIGN: Data collection involved an anonymous cross-sectional online SurveyMonkeyâ„¢ questionnaire. METHODS: An email invitation to complete the survey was sent to the 1842 members of the British Orthodontic Society on 9 June 2020 with a follow-up reminder on 15 July 2020. The invitation contained a brief description and online link to the questionnaire, which was active between 9 June and 9 August 2020. The 15-item questionnaire covered frequency of reading, preferred format, likes and dislikes, and what changes might improve the Journal. Data were analysed for the membership as a whole using simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 310 individuals completed the questionnaire, representing a response rate of 17% with 74.2% (n = 230) reporting reading at least one article per issue. The most popular way of reading the Journal (77.4%, n = 240) was through the distributed print copy. Overall, 63.6% (n=197) rated the Journal as excellent and 35.2% (n = 109) as satisfactory, with only 1.3% (n = 4) responding that it was poor. The scientific and clinical articles were the most popular aspect of the Journal and 90.3% (n = 280) of respondents felt the Journal content was relevant to their current clinical practice. Respondents were also given the opportunity to make additional free-text comments; and themes that emerged included a wish for more clinical content, more online interaction with authors through webinars and continued professional development. CONCLUSION: The Journal of Orthodontics is perceived as being relevant to current clinical practice by members of the British Orthodontic Society and has high-level satisfaction. There is a desire for more online interaction with the membership as part of its role within the society. However, the overall response rate was low and therefore a high risk of potential bias associated with this survey.