Ontario dentists' ease to discuss sensitive health issues with their patients: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With consistent calls for a more integrated approach to improve the healthcare system's effectiveness, the scope of practice for dentists has expanded; dentists are now seen to positively intervene to address several sensitive health issues among their patients. However, it is not clear how comfortable dentists feel in doing so. This study endeavored to assess self-perceived ease of dentists to discuss various sensitive health issues and if their socio-demographics influence their ease. METHODS: A self-administered online survey was sent to Ontario dentists (n = 9975) to assess their self-perceived ease in discussing five sensitive health issues with their patients: eating disorders, substance abuse, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexual behaviors, and physical abuse. Ordinal logistic regressions were performed along with descriptive analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 9.3%. Over 50% of participants indicated difficulty discussing STIs, sexual behaviors and physical abuse. Younger dentists, female practitioners, dentists practicing in private settings, and those practicing in rural areas perceived more difficulty to discuss all five health issues. Place of training was also a significant predictor: internationally trained dentists perceived it easier to discuss eating disorders, substance abuse, and physical abuse while Canadian trained were more at ease to discuss STIs and sexual behaviors. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study identified that a large proportion of dentists are not comfortable discussing sensitive health issue with their patients. There are numerous opportunities for intervention in Canadian dental curriculums, continuing education programs, and communication practices to support dentists' discussions with patients about these important health concerns.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".