Oral cancer screening practices of Canadian dental hygienists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigates whether dental hygienists are routinely conducting oral cancer screenings (OCSs) as per their professional capability and responsibility. Factors that may mediate provision of OCSs, and ability to discuss sensitive topics with patients, are also examined. METHODS: A pretested online questionnaire was sent via national and provincial regulatory bodies to target practicing registered dental hygienists across Canada. Analysis was conducted using statistical software. RESULTS: Results of 256 surveys were analysed. Sixty-four per cent of dental hygienists listed an OCS as part of their regular process of care. Except for the initial examination, respondents were significantly more likely to report being responsible for the OCS than the dentist, P<.001. On average, intraoral components are inspected at higher frequencies (96%) than extraoral components (73%). Confidence in OCS technique was high (70%). The majority felt prepared by their education to conduct OCSs (60%), but those with a bachelor's degree felt more prepared than those with a diploma, P=.005. The average time to conduct an OCS is 4.09 minutes, with most agreeing there is sufficient time in an appointment (57%). Only 37% felt their education prepared them to discuss sensitive topics, level of education had no effect, P>.05. Only 43% of respondents felt confident in their human papillomavirus (HPV) knowledge and comfortable discussing HPV risk factors with patients. CONCLUSION: Dental hygienists in this study are regularly conducting OCSs; however, they lack comfort discussing sensitive topics such as transmission of oral HPV, and screenings may not be fully comprehensive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".