LGBT Coverage in U.S. Dental Schools and Dental Hygiene Programs: Results of a National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to assess curricular coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) content in U.S. and Canadian dental schools and U.S. dental hygiene programs, including hours of LGBT content, pedagogy used, and assessment methods, and to determine whether respondents perceived their institution's coverage as adequate. Data were collected from academic deans at 32 U.S. and two Canadian dental schools and from program directors at 71 U.S. dental hygiene programs (response rates 49%, 20%, 23%, respectively). The results showed that 29% of responding dental schools and 48% of responding dental hygiene programs did not cover LGBT content. Among the respondents, dental schools dedicated on average 3.68 hours and dental hygiene programs 1.25 hours in required settings to LGBT content. Lectures (dental schools 68%, dental hygiene programs 45%) and small group instruction (43%, 25%) were reported as the most common methodology used in teaching this content. Most of the responding dental schools and dental hygiene programs covered HIV (85%, 53%), oral disease risk (63%, 54%), and barriers to accessing health care for LGBT people (58%, 38%). Up to a third reported no need for coverage of topics such as sexual orientation (21%, 32%), coming out (29%, 37%), transitioning (29%, 38%), and sex reassignment surgery (32%, 35%). Assessment was through written examinations (41%, 30%) and faculty-observed patient interactions (21%, 23%); some respondents (20%, 33%) reported no assessment of learning outcomes. The most frequently endorsed strategies for increasing LGBT content were receiving curricular material focusing on LGBT-related health issues and health disparities and having trained faculty to teach LGBT content.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".