Survey on the attitudes of dental hygiene students towards treating elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This questionnaire-based survey assessed the attitudes of dental hygiene students towards treating elderly patients. METHODS: The 14-item UCLA 14-item Geriatrics Attitudes Scale (GAS-14) questionnaire was used in this survey. A further set of nine questions evaluated the opinions of the students towards the existing geriatric curriculum in their respective institutions. Students from five dental hygiene schools from three countries (Switzerland, Belgium and Canada) participated in this survey. General demographic information from the participants was collected. Mean GAS-14 scores were calculated; ANOVA and Bonferroni's tests were used for statistical analyses (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-five students (Switzerland: n = 157, mean age = 25.38 ± 4.6 years; Belgium: n = 82, mean age = 27.58 ± 12.8 years; Canada: n = 146, mean age = 25.95 ± 12.3 years) completed the survey for a response rate of 86.3%. The overall GAS-14 scores for Switzerland, Belgium and Canada were 3.61 ± 0.42, 3.24 ± 0.37 and 3.32 ± 0.36, respectively. Switzerland scored significantly higher than Belgium and Canada (p < 0.0001). Overall scores revealed a significant effect of progressive training (p = 0.010). The GAS-14 score was influenced by the nationality of the participants (p < 0.0001), but not influenced by sex, age, origin, religion, or marital and accommodation statuses. Majority of the students (75.8%) agreed that geriatric dentistry was an important part of their education. 77.4% agreed that they would like hands on experience in treating the elderly patient during their education. 85.1% of the participants considered mobile dental clinics as a good solution for the provision of dental care to the institutionalized elders. CONCLUSIONS: The general attitudes of DH students towards treating the elderly patients are on an acceptable level and improved as they progressed through their dental hygiene academic programmes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".