Exploring dental student participation in interdisciplinary care team conferences in long‐term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore how the participation of dental hygiene students in interdisciplinary care conferences conducted in long-term care (LTC) facilities influenced the staff's awareness of oral health, the student's provision of care as well as the student's ability to work on an interdisciplinary team. BACKGROUND: Oral health in LTC continues to be poor despite many educational and clinical interventions. The care of a frail elder requires an interdisciplinary team approach, yet dental professionals are often absent from these teams. As an educational intervention, dental hygiene students, in addition to providing clinical care to residents and education to staff in a LTC facility, have been participating in interdisciplinary care conferences for 4 years. METHODS: Nine LTC facility staff and eight students participated in two focus groups and five personal interviews to discuss their experiences of the care conferences. Narratives were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged that described the essence of the experience of involving dental professionals within interdisciplinary care conference: (i) addressing oral health, (ii) reciprocal learning, (iii) dealing with complexity and (iv) impact of collaborative care. CONCLUSION: Overall, students found the educational intervention to be worthwhile that allowed for the development of interdisciplinary skills and a greater understanding of dental geriatrics. The dental support in care conferences was welcomed by the staff as it facilitated a new way of exchanging knowledge and experiences so that a more holistic approach to care could be undertaken by all.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".