COVID‐19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives on dental geriatric care and education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and the curtailment of clinical and face-to-face university instruction in British Columbia on March 16, 2020, the opportunity arose to explore how third- and fourth-year undergraduate dental students critically considered the impact of the pandemic on education and the practice of dental geriatrics. METHODS: All third- and fourth-year undergraduate dental students within a dental geriatric module were asked to provide a written guided reflection on the question: "In your opinion, what factors make outbreaks (or pandemics) like COVID-19 relevant to the practice of dental geriatrics?" Reflections were gathered from March 12 to May 8, 2020. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify and interpret patterns of meaning within the reflections by means of an interactive coding process. RESULTS: A total of 115 reflections, between 291 and 710 words each, were received from 56 third-year (62.5% male) and 59 fourth-year (42.6% male) students. Five main themes emerged: experiencing uncertainties, frailty as a moderator, constraints in accessing care, preparedness protocol, and redefining care. The frequency in which the same codes, categories, and themes were assigned varied from 16 to 140 times. CONCLUSIONS: Students' reflections highlighted the effects of the pandemic, not only on their education but also on frail older adults themselves and the profession of dentistry in general. Further studies are warranted to explore how this curtailment might impact educators' approaches to geriatric education, as well as the way graduating students will set up their practices and approach geriatric care in the future.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".