How do dental students perceive the role of dental professionals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore dental students' perceptions of the role of dental professionals as healthcare providers and/or businesspersons. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey collected information from undergraduate dental students at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto (N = 430). PPR was assessed through a visual analog scale (VAS) question, with the two ends labeled as "Healthcare Provider" (0) and "Business Person" (100), which asked respondents to point where they perceived dental professionals to be. Association of students' PPR with environmental, institutional and student-related factors was investigated using Chi-square and Spearman's correlation tests and logistic regression. Additionally, information on students' professional attitudes was gathered using: (i) the same VAS question, which asked students what they themselves aspired to be; and (ii) level of agreement with two sets of Likert-type questions highlighting healthcare provider and businessperson attitudes. RESULTS: The survey yielded a response rate of 51.4% (n = 221). The majority of respondents perceived dental professionals as healthcare providers and aspired to be healthcare providers themselves. Results of multivariable logistic regression suggested that perceiving dental professionals as businesspersons was significantly associated with perceiving future patients as consumers. Those who strongly agreed with healthcare provider statements had lesser odds of perceiving dental professionals as businesspersons. CONCLUSION: In this sample of students, perceptions of professionalism appear to be congruent with the normative role of dental professionals as healthcare providers. Dental education should prepare graduates who strongly identify with this role even in the presence of dental care market pressures.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".