Research utilization among dental hygienists in Sweden – a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade evidence-based practice has become increasingly important in health care as an approach to improve patient outcomes. It is vital that dental hygienists, like other health professionals, use research findings to inform clinical practice. The objective of the present study was to investigate the extent of research utilization among dental hygienists in Sweden and to investigate the relationship between level of education and factors related to research utilization. A random sample of 261 dental hygienists in Sweden, 113 with 1 year and 148 with 2-year education, responded to a postal questionnaire covering various aspects of research utilization, i.e. their attitudes towards research, availability and support for the implementation of research findings, use of research in daily practice, their activity in seeking new research findings and their participation in a range of research-related activities. Dental hygienists with 2-year education had a more positive attitude towards research, used research to a greater extent and were more active in seeking new research findings than dental hygienists with 1-year education. Overall, relatively few dental hygienists reported that they implemented research findings in practice; the most frequently reported activity concerned reading research articles in professional journals. The conclusions are that the length of dental hygiene education is a key factor influencing the application of research findings to practice. One-year education appears to be inadequate to achieve evidence-based practice. Moreover, not even two years of formal education guarantees necessary competence in research for evidence-based dental hygiene practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".