Building professional competence in dental hygiene students through a community‐based practicum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As Canadians age, there is an increased need for oral health professionals specializing in services for this unique population. Dental hygiene students require exposure to this population to develop professional competencies. This study investigated the dimensions of professional competence that were developed through a practicum for dental hygiene students in long-term care settings while working with older adults. METHODS: Nine dental hygiene students were recruited across two cohorts. All students completed reflective journals describing their practicum experiences. Five students also participated in an audio-recorded focus group and completed a pre-focus group questionnaire. Additionally, the practicum course coordinator completed an audio-recorded interview. Transcripts and journals were coded using a constant comparative approach and themes were identified. RESULTS: Students described developing client-focused skills, such as effective verbal and non-verbal communication with older adults with dementia. Context-based learning was also a large part of the competency development for the practicum students. Understanding the care environment within which these residents lived helped students to understand and empathize why oral health may not be prioritized. Students also developed an understanding of the work of other health professionals in the settings and improved their abilities to communicate with other healthcare providers. However, students recognized that the utility of those interprofessional skills in private practice may be limited. CONCLUSION: Dental hygiene students developed personal and ethical competencies during practicum that are highly transferrable across professional settings. Exposure of students to older adult populations in long-term care may increase the likelihood of dental hygienists working in this area.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".