A scoping review on social justice education in current undergraduate dental curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent shift in educational components within healthcare has pushed dentistry toward a greater understanding of the role of social components on oral health. There has also been an increased awareness of inappropriate conduct among dental students. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to determine if, how, and when social-justice-oriented education has been incorporated into dental curricula worldwide. A systematic and reiterative search of articles was performed on February 22, 2018, and combined quantitative and qualitative synthesis of data. An updated search was done on September 26, 2019. PRIMARY RESULTS: Seventy-three studies were evaluated: 46 quantitative (63%), 24 qualitative (33%), 3 multimethods (4%). The majority used self-reported surveys and questionnaires (66%), while the remaining used interviews (9.5%), student reflections (16%) and focus groups (5.5%). Studies included dental students only (78%); dental students with dental hygiene students (5.5%) or faculty/staff (4.1%); dental students in year 1 (17%), year 2 (1.6%), year 3 (1.6%), year 4 (14.2%); first- and second-year students (3%); third- and fourth-year students (1.6%); all years of study (20%); and academic year not specified (41%). The study areas included "learning in dental school," "experiencing dental school," "focusing on cultural competency," and "addressing dental ethics and social responsibility." PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Three major research gaps were identified: no discussion of a social contract between dentists and society, no explicit social justice-oriented topics within undergraduate dental curricula, and no standardized tool to measure these topics. Further research is necessary to understand how such topics can be included in dental curricula to form socially competent dentists.
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 | 0.021 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".