Death, dying and bereavement: a survey of dental practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dentist's role following the death of a patient in his/her practice has received little attention in the literature. This study determined the prevalence of death within a dental practice. It also investigated methods by which dentists supported grieving survivors, and how frequently dentists received formal bereavement education in dental school. A perceived need for training in death and dying was also investigated. A survey was mailed to 200 randomly selected general dental practitioners in Ontario, Canada. It was found that (1) the vast majority of respondents (86%) had experienced the death of a patient within the past 12 months; (2) support methods included sending sympathy cards (79.3%), sending flowers (34.5%), attending the funeral or wake (23%), or visiting/calling survivors (11.5%); (3) only 4% of respondents reported receiving formal bereavement education during dental school; and (4) 61% believed bereavement education should be included in the dental school curricula. While the majority of dentists in this study provided bereavement support and believed they could effectively comfort grieving persons, these dentists experienced significant stress when dealing with issues of death and bereavement. The stress may be explained by inadequate education and exposure to the issues of death and dying.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".