Brazilian Dental Students’ Attitudes About Provision of Care for Patients Living in Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to investigate dental students' attitudes toward people living in poverty and the extent to which their perceptions were associated with their willingness to treat those patients in their future practice. All 910 dental students enrolled in three Brazilian public universities in 2010 were invited to take part in a cross-sectional survey. A total of 766 students (83.7% response rate) completed the self-administered questionnaire on their perceptions of and attitudes about poverty and their intention to provide dental care to poor people. The responding students showed slightly positive attitudes about people living in poverty; however, a high percentage (35%) reported thinking they were different from the rest of the population. Nevertheless, most of these students expressed willingness to provide care to underserved populations in their future practice; this willingness was found to be associated with their beliefs about poverty (OR 1.65; 95% CI=1.41-1.94). Overall, the study found that these dental students had altruistic views toward people living in poverty. However, they seemed to lack a deep understanding of poverty that may prevent them from acting on their good intentions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".