Contemporary predoctoral paediatric behaviour guidance education in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the contemporary educational experiences of predoctoral dental students in the United States and Canada regarding behaviour guidance (BG) of the child patient and assess trends from a previous study in 2004. METHODS: Data were collected from 32 predoctoral paediatric dentistry programme directors in the United States and Canada via a web-based survey. RESULTS: The didactic curriculum hours devoted to the teaching of BG techniques in 2019 are similar to 2004. A majority (60.7%) of programmes do not have a formal assessment of competency with BG techniques. Lectures (n = 28), clinical experience (n = 28) and observation (n = 26) were the most common techniques implemented to teach BG techniques, and tell-show-do (100%), non-verbal communication (82.1%), positive reinforcement (89.3%) and distraction (82.1%) were the techniques that more than 75% of dental students most commonly have hands-on experience with during their dental education. In 2019, students tended to have more hands-on experience with nitrous oxide/oxygen inhalation and less hands-on experience with aversive techniques and sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dental schools do not have a formal competency in BG of the child patient. Compared with 2004, nitrous oxide/oxygen is used more by dental students and there is less predoctoral education in aversive BG techniques.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".