MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183874119

Perceptions and attitudes of Canadian dentists toward digital and electronic technologies.

2006· article· en· W2183874119 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carlos Flores‐Mir, Neal G. Palmer, Herbert C. Northcott, Fareeza Khurshed, Paul W. Major

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDental practiceThe InternetStratified samplingMedicinePerceptionEmerging technologiesFamily medicineQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPsychologyDentistryComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine dentists" perceptions of the usefulness of digital technologies in improving dental practice and resolving practice issues; to determine dentists" willingness to use digital and electronic technologies; to determine perceived obstacles to the use of digital and electronic technologies in dental offices; and to determine dentists" attitudes toward Internet privacy issues. METHODS: An anonymous, self-administered survey of Canadian dentists was conducted by mail. A potential mailing list of 14,052 active Canadian dentists was compiled from the 2003 records of provincial regulatory bodies. For each province, 7.8% of the dentists were randomly selected with the help of computer software. The surveys were mailed to this stratified random sample of 1,096 dentists. RESULTS: The response rate was 28% (312/1,096). Of the 312 respondents, 4 (1%) were in full-time academic positions, 16 (5%) were not practising, and 9 (3%) provided incomplete data. Therefore, 283 survey responses were available for analysis. More than 60% of the dentists indicated that computer technology was quite capable or very capable of improving their current practice by increasing patient satisfaction, decreasing office expenses, increasing practice efficiency, increasing practice production, improving record quality and improving case diagnosis and treatment planning. More than 50% of respondents reported that digital photography and digital radiography were quite useful or very useful. About 70% of the dentists agreed or strongly agreed with using digital and electronic technologies to consult with dental specialists. Cost of equipment and lack of comfort with technology were regarded as significant or insurmountable obstacles by substantial proportions of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents generally viewed digital and electronic technologies as useful to the profession. Increased office efficiency and production were perceived as positive effects of digital and electronic technologies. These technologies are more often used for consulting with colleagues rather than for consulting with patients. The major obstacles to the general use of these technologies were related to cost, lack of comfort with technology and differences in legislation between provinces and countries. Privacy issues were not perceived as a significant barrier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207