Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a high level of mental health problems for the population worldwide including healthcare workers. It highlighted the need to better understand levels and determinants of mental health problems among dental professionals. Several studies have assessed these mental health problems using generic and specific measures of anxiety. The COVID-19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale (C-19ASS) is a self-report measure developed to assess maladaptive forms of coping with COVID-19. Prior to our study, its validation has been limited. Objectives: 1) validate the COVID-19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale (C-19ASS) questionnaire against the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) tool in a population of dentists in Canada; 2) describe the anxiety levels among dentists in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they varied over time; 3) estimate the differences in the anxiety levels in dentists in Canada following vaccination against SARS-CoV2; 4) To estimate the differences in the anxiety levels in dentists in Canada by age, sex and practice type; and 5) describe the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the anxiety due to this impact among dentists in Canada. Methods: To address the aims of this study, data were used from a prospective cohort study conducted to estimate the incidence rate of COVID-19 among licensed dentists in Canada over a 12-month study period. To evaluate the validity of the C-19ASS, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed. We used Cronbach’s alpha to evaluate internal reliability and compared scores with the GAD-7 scale for external validity. To address the remaining aims, mixed effects ordinal logistic regression models were used. Results: Concerning the validity of the C-19ASS, the EFA revealed a 2-factor solution that explained 47% of the total variance. The CFA showed a good model fit on the data in both English and French languages. The Cronbach’s alpha indicated acceptable levels of reliability. Furthermore, the C-19ASS showed excellent divergent validity from the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale. Regarding anxiety levels over time, the odds of being in a more severe category of anxiety were reduced by 26% (OR 0.74, 95% C.I. 0.72-0.76) with every 30-day increase in the follow-up time. The odds of being in a more severe category of anxiety increased by 20% (Odds Ratio =1.20, 95% C.I.= 1.12-1.27) with each 10,000 COVID-19 case increase in the dentists’ work province during the 14 days prior to data collection. Age, sex and practice type were significantly associated with COVID-19 related anxiety in dentists. Reduced revenue collection, the ability to offer limited dental treatments, reduced number of patients and increased costs involved in practice were the major practice-related factors that led to increased anxiety in dentists. With every 11-year age increase, the odds of the dentists having more severe economic burden increased by 4% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 –1.05). The odds for the dentists in Ontario having higher economic burden were increased by 97% (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.96 – 4.0) as compared to the Atlantic provinces. Specialists had 42% reduced odds for severe economic burden compared to general dentists (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.31- 1.09). The odds for dental practice-owners having more severe economic burden were increased by 59% (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 – 2.57) compared to non-owners. Conclusions: The C-19ASS is valid and reliable instrument to measure COVID-19 related anxiety in English and French among Canadian dentists. It is sensitive to change over time and with external anxiety stimuli. COVID-19 related anxiety among dentists was associated with age, sex and practice type. Age, sex, province, dental practice ownership and practice-related factors were associated with their anxiety levels. Their economic burden was associated with age, province, practice type and dental practice ownership
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».