The HIV and SARS-CoV-2 Parallel in Dentistry from the Perspectives of the Oral Health Care Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to unravel the professional and social consequences of COVID-19 as compared with the AIDS pandemic according to oral health care providers, staff, and administrators. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative inquiry via at-a-distance, semistructured interviews engaged a purposefully recruited sample of oral health care team workers in British Columbia. Interviews took place between April 20 and May 15, 2020; they were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and deidentified for interactive thematic analysis. An inductive process of coding was used to identify themes, subthemes, and categories of information. RESULTS: Forty-five interviews were conducted with 18 dentists, 12 dental hygienists, 6 certified dental assistants, and 9 administrators; 22 were females. Interviews each lasted an average of 48 min. After the transcripts were coded, 3 subthemes emerged: 1) personal protective equipment and universal precautions as commonsense approaches to care during both pandemics; 2) an (un)collapsed world in terms of global lockdowns; and 3) social unrest in terms of the potential for stigma and discrimination caused by both pandemics. These subthemes made up the COVID-19-AIDS parallel theme. CONCLUSION: This study explored the extent to which the current COVID-19 pandemic is leading to professional and social consequences when a parallel is drawn with the AIDS pandemic. This is the first qualitative study that identifies the potential social unrest of the pandemic from the perspective of oral health care providers and administrators. Future studies should include other providers across Canada, as well the patients receiving oral health care during this pandemic. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The COVID-19 pandemic has unraveled potential societal implications in a parallel to the HIV/AIDS era from the perspectives of oral health care providers and their staff. Such implications are changing the way that oral health care is delivered; it may also be leading to social unrest in the form of stigma and discrimination. This study discusses some of these implications from the perspective of oral health care providers and administrators.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".