Dental hygienists’ research utilization: influence of context and attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research use is a core component of evidence-based practice (EBP), contributing to improved patient outcomes; however, we know little about factors influencing research use among dental hygienists. The purpose of this study is to examine whether individual's attitudes and organizational context influence dental hygienists' research use. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design was used to study research use among a geographically stratified probability sample of 1100 Canadian dental hygienists. A translated French-language version was provided for Francophone dental hygienists. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using SPSS. RESULTS: Mean responses were highest for conceptual research use (RU) (4.1), followed by overall RU (3.7), direct RU (3.3), and persuasive RU (3.3), on a five-point Likert scale. Internal consistency reliability for attitude and context scales was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.86 and 0.83, respectively). Repeated measures t-tests found significant differences between willingness to implement research and frequency of actually implementing research (P < 0.001 for paired comparisons), and ratings of importance of supportive practice characteristics were significantly higher than their actual presence (P < 0.001 for paired comparisons). A multiple linear regression model found the variables attitude, context, and years of practice explained 19.0% of the variation in responses. DISCUSSION: Significant differences between willingness to implement research and actual implementation, and between perceived importance of supportive practice characteristics and their presence, require exploration of these differences. CONCLUSION: These findings support the importance of the practice context and individual attitudes for research uptake by dental hygienists. Knowledge translation theories can inform further research and contribute greater explanatory power to this preliminary model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".