Teaching special care dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum: Challenges, opportunities, and the road forward
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
World over, there is a growing awareness of the gaps in dental treatment of persons living with disabilities. Special care dentistry is that branch of dentistry that provides oral care services for people with physical, medical, developmental, or cognitive conditions which limit their ability to receive routine dental care. The teaching of special care dentistry at the undergraduate level though remains a subject that is under addressed in literature and rarely taught formally. How we view disability is often a combination of cultural and social factors. For example, while the 2017 Canadian survey on disability found that nearly 18% of Canadians identified themselves as disabled,[1] the 2016 Saudi Survey found that only 3.3% of Saudi citizens considered themselves to be disabled.[2] Regardless of these discrepancies, most of the disabilities reported are related to age, and with life expectancy increasing the world over, it is reasonable to expect that the graduating dentist needs to be competent to provide comprehensive dental care to individuals living with disabilities, both transient and permanent. It is ironic then that much of the education in providing this care is delivered as a part of the pediatric dental curriculum. While the pediatric dentist is certainly competent to provide comprehensive care to children with special health-care needs and children living with disabilities, the provision of dental care to adults living with disabilities presents its own unique challenges. From endodontia to exodontia, the scope of practice of the adult special care dentist is very different from that of the pediatric dentist! The International Association for Disability and Oral Health (IADH) in 2012 developed an undergraduate curriculum for special care dentistry.[3] The curriculum outlined essential skills and competencies for the graduating dentist in the provision of dental care to individuals living with disability. This curriculum was designed so that it could be adapted to the needs of each country, and it has been adopted, in part or wholly in different countries such as Ireland, Australia, and Malaysia. A recent study in Canada showed that the IADH curriculum could easily be integrated into the curriculum of Canadian dental schools.[4] It is interesting to note that even in the United States, where special care dentistry is not a recognized dental specialty; the Committee on Dental Accreditation has mandated that graduating dental students be competent in the provision of dental care to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Societies such as the Arab Society for Disability and Oral Health possess the knowledge and human resources needed to develop a customized special care dentistry curriculum for the region. There is a need to formally integrate special care dentistry education into the undergraduate dental curriculum, and dental schools across the region need to unite to achieve this timely necessity.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,020 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,020 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,028 | 0,009 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».