Impact of Evidence‐Based Dentistry Workshops on Educators’ Use of Evidence in Teaching and Practice: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this pilot study were to evaluate the short-term impact of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) workshops on educators' use of clinical evidence in their clinical practice and educational activities and to identify barriers they encountered in implementing evidence in their teaching and clinical practice. Between April 2012 and January 2014, a series of EBD workshops was delivered to 31 dental faculty members and postdoctoral students at three Canadian dental schools. Survey I, assessing participants' perceptions of various aspects of the workshops, was administered immediately following the workshops. Survey II, evaluating the impact of the workshops on participants' EBD implementation, was conducted 10 to 31 months after their completion. Survey I was completed by all 31 participants (100% response rate); their mean scores ranged from 3.94 to 4.65 on a five-point scale. Survey II was completed by 20 participants (64.5% response rate; five postdoctoral students and 15 faculty members), using an online 20-item questionnaire. Of the respondents, 19 (95%) reported implementing EBD in their professional activities at that time, and 14 (70%) stated that the workshops had positively helped with EBD implementation. Eight respondents (40%) reported having experienced barriers to EBD implementation, while 15 (75%) reported that their patients/students welcomed use of EBD. The respondents reported believing that strategies such as increasing EBD education and dissemination and improving quality and accessibility of evidence would facilitate the transition to EBD practice. Reported barriers to EBD implementation included resistance and criticism from colleagues, difficulty in changing current practice model, and lack of time.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".