MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3214945139 · doi:10.7939/r3-kepd-0f64

Volunteer-student experiences and patient access to an inner-city dental clinic

2021· article· en· W3214945139 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria G Kallal

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDentistry
ThématiqueDental Research and COVID-19
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVolunteerMedicineMedical education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Low-income Canadians face multi-faceted physical and social barriers to dental care including but not limited to cost and stigma. Recognising the barriers to care, the Student-Health Initiative for the Needs of Edmonton (SHINE) dental clinic was created in 2004. SHINE is a student-volunteer operated clinic that aims to reduce inequalities in access to oral health care by offering free dental care to low-income individuals. However, as SHINE is a volunteer initiative independent from the undergraduate dentistry and dental hygiene programs at the University of Alberta, there has been limited investigation into the clinic and how it aligns with patient needs and contributes to student learning. Purpose: The purpose of this dissertation was to explore the accessibility to SHINE for oral health care, and how students perceive volunteering at SHINE contributes to their learning. Methods: The dissertation consists of three related papers: (1) interviews with health brokers were held to explore access to SHINE for the intended patient population to understand SHINE’s alignment to the populations needs; (2) student focus groups explored how the volunteer experience at SHINE contributed to student learning; (3) patient surveys and field notes investigated patient satisfaction with access, patient oral health concerns, and alternative dental care options outside of SHINE. Results: Interviews with health brokers revealed lack of awareness of the SHINE clinic. Further, English language translation support was an identified need, and there was concern for clients who fear discrimination in health care settings. From the student focused groups, data showed that students gained both clinical and cultural competence by volunteering at SHINE. Three themes were derived from the data which captured how SHINE benefitted student learning: learning environment, learning enhancements, and learning from patients. Patient surveys revealed that patients primarily present to SHINE for pain (52%) or broken teeth. However, desire for preventative care was indicated by 25.2% seeking dental hygiene services. Patients were generally satisfied with SHINE although the least satisfaction was seen in time spent waiting to attain care and patient ability to attain dental care when needed. Dissatisfaction was correlated with attending SHINE without receiving treatment. Field notes revealed physical accessibility barriers not captured within the survey. If SHINE was not an option for receiving dental care, 32% would seek care through an emergency department or physician and 27% would not attain care at all. Conclusion: Health brokers identified preliminary barriers to dental care at SHINE. However, further investigation was required to understand SHINE’s accessibility. Through patient surveys and field notes, remaining barriers were identified to be wait times and capacity for SHINE to provide all dental services required. Although patients were generally satisfied with access to SHINE, suggestions were made to alleviate barriers. Access to care at SHINE may reduce the utilization of emergency departments. Students’ experiences volunteering with SHINE had beneficial learning outcomes and brought to light three considerations for undergraduate dentistry and dental hygiene education; need for further cultural competence education, student desire for “real-life” clinical experiences, and a reduction in evaluations once clinical competency was achieved.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,202
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,300
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Alberta LibraryMême sujetDental Research and COVID-19Travaux en français237 207