Self-reported compliance to recommended face-coverings, during the COVID-19 pandemic, among Canadian dentists and dental hygienists.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, all Canadian dental and dental hygiene regulators recommended enhanced infection prevention and control (IPC). Among a range of enhanced IPC strategies, the focus was on the type and combination of face-coverings oral health care providers (OHCPs) should use under different circumstances. Further, the regulatory bodies frequently updated their IPC strategies through various pandemic stages. Although some studies have reviewed them, little is known about the evolution of the face-covering recommendation in the IPC strategy as the COVID-19 outbreak patterns varied. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on IPC implementation during COVID-19. A way to measure implementation would be to calculate the compliance of OHCPs.Objectives: 1) To document and compare face-covering recommendations in IPC strategies provided by various provincial dental and dental hygiene regulatory bodies in Canada during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic; 2) To estimate the rate of compliance with the recommended face-coverings, among dentists and dental hygienists (DHs) in Canada, after the resumption of non-essential oral health care provision.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the IPC strategies shared by dental (n =78) and dental hygiene (n= 57) regulatory bodies from 10 provinces and three territories of Canada from March 2020 to January 2022. This information was compared to the face-covering data from two prospective cohort studies on dentists (n=644) and DHs (n=876) practicing in Canada over the period from July 2020 to January 2022. We assigned a face-covering compliance score for the self-reported combination of mask and eye protection based on the provincial IPC strategy applicable to the participants' date of response. The proportion of participants who are compliant at different levels were estimated along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each data collection points.Results: The overall median number of IPC strategies shared by the regional regulatory bodies over the study period was nine, with a maximum of 21 from Nova Scotia and a minimum of one from Nunavut. During the initial phases of COVID-19, five out of 12 provinces recommended using both glasses/goggles and visors for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). In contrast, only three out of 10 provinces recommended it in the following urgent care phase. Similarly, the mask recommendation changed, with seven out of 12 provinces strictly specifying N95 respirator or superior, in contrast, 11 out of 13 provinces allowed alternative masks on resuming non-essential care. Throughout the study duration, the proportions of fully compliant participants averaged 36.5% (CI of 23.6% to 51.7%), and 66.7% (CI of 57.7% to 74.7%) among dental hygienists. The compliance rate for dentists showed considerable variance over the study period ranging from 59.2% (CI, 53.2% to 65.0%) to 84.8% (CI, 80.1% to 88.6%). On the other hand, the compliance rate for DHs showed only minor variation across time.Conclusion: Analysis of the provincial COVID-19-specific enhanced IPC guidelines for OHCPs revealed the difference in re-opening strategy and face-coverings recommended during the same time frame for dentists and DHs across Canada. There was a drop in compliance for both dentists and DHs in the winter of 2021, and a considerable difference in the pattern of compliance of the two professionals. The findings of this study are an important contribution in terms of overall comprehensive knowledge concerning the IPC guideline documents and their implementation among the OHCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic
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 | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».