Changing Health Professionals’ Attitudes and Practice Behaviors Through Interprofessional Continuing Education in Oral‐Systemic Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integration of oral-systemic science into clinical care holds promise for improving patient outcomes and presenting opportunities for individuals in various health care professions to learn with, from, and about each other. The aim of this study was to examine whether an interprofessional continuing education program dedicated to oral-systemic health improved participants' attitudes toward interprofessional education and collaboration between dental and non-dental health care professionals and whether it influenced the physicians' practice of screening for debilitating oral diseases. The study took place in 2014 and used a mixed-methods approach, consisting of Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) surveys conducted before, immediately after, and six months after the intervention, as well as surveys of self-reported practice behaviors and semi-structured interviews. A total of 231 health care professionals participated in the lectures and roundtable discussions. Of those, 134 responded to the pre-program survey (58% response rate), 110 responded to the post-program survey (48% response rate), and 58 responded to the survey six months after the program (25% response rate). The participants' median total RIPLS score at baseline was 76.5, which increased significantly immediately following the program (81.0) but returned to baseline six months later (76.5). Participants' RIPLS domain scores also increased significantly by profession from before to after the event, with effects returning to baseline after six months. Significantly more physicians reported screening for caries and periodontal disease after the intervention. An overall theme of "learning with, from, and about each other" was drawn from the interviews with 15 participants. The physicians took away a message of "just look in the mouth," while the dental professionals reported feeling valued as members of the health care team. Although reported improvements in oral-systemic health practice immediately after the intervention were encouraging, further research is necessary to understand why collaborative behaviors were not sustained.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".