Evaluating Point‐of‐Care HIV Screening in Dental Hygiene Education Settings: Patient, Faculty, and Student Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although HIV screening is needed at a wider range of sites, dentists have shown reluctance to incorporate screening in their practices, but dental hygiene settings may be better suited for such screenings. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of point-of-care (POC) HIV screening in dental hygiene education community settings from the patient, faculty, and student perspectives. After training, dental hygiene students and faculty at a Canadian dental school offered POC HIV screening to patients as part of routine dental hygiene care over 36 weeks at four sites in 2015-16. Of the 199 patients offered screening, 78 agreed; no positive results were found. Of the 199 patients, 97 completed an 11-item survey (49% response rate), with 80 (82%) agreeing HIV screening was within the scope of practice of a dental professional. Of the 57 patients who were screened, 48 (84%) agreed POC HIV screening should be part of regular dental check-ups, and 52 (91%) perceived dental settings were appropriate sites for screening. The main reasons for patients' agreeing to screening were that it was free and convenient and the results were delivered quickly. Those who refused screening had been tested recently or did not perceive themselves at risk for HIV. In two focus groups with 12 dental hygiene students, one focus group with five faculty members, and individual interviews with five other faculty members, participants agreed on the importance of offering POC HIV screening in the dental setting as a public health service. Faculty members thought students were well prepared and increased in confidence with testing. Students expressed a desire to offer screening throughout their careers and to educate patients about the importance of HIV testing.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".