Infection Control Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among Dental Students at Al-Ahram Canadian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Exposure to blood-borne pathogens poses a serious risk to health care providers . Healthcare workers are three to six times more likely than the general public to catch bloodborne viruses. Dental health-care providers are under significant risk, since the treatment usually requires intrusive procedures. So, poor adherence to standard precautions, represent the main causes that pose a critical risk of infection in dental practice. Despite the fact that universities are the primary source of infection control instruction for future dentists, research in the Middle East has revealed that awareness of infection control among dental students as well as some of the teaching staff is poor. In Egypt, Researches discussing Knowledge, attitudes and practice of infection control among students don’t cover all aspects. So that This study was performed at faculty of dentistry Al Ahram Canadian University (ACU). Materials and methods: A questionnaire was developed to probe the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of infection control. The pre-structured self-administered online questionnaire was sent to level 4 and 5 students (749) using Microsoft Teams. Data management and statistical analysis were performed using spss v. 18. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. Results: Responders to the questionnaire were 98 students in level 4 and 172 students in level 5 with a total of 270 students (36% response level). Regarding the total score for all Knowledge questions, level 4 recorded a slightly higher mean value (21.28±5.44), in comparison to level 5 (20.02±5.47), with no significant difference between groups (p=0.069). Regarding the total score for the 24 practice questions, level 4 recorded a slightly higher mean value (21.28±5.44), in comparison to level 5 (20.02±5.47), with no significant difference between groups (p=0.069). Regarding the total score for the 5 attitude questions, level 4 recorded a slightly higher mean value (4.60±1.03), in comparison to level 5 (4.46±1.19), with no significant difference between groups (p=0.32) . Conclusion: from the results of the study, we can conclude that students at level 4 showed slightly higher knowledge, attitude, and dental practice than their colleagues at 5 level. However, knowledge is low for both levels except for hand hygiene among students at level 4. Students’ attitudes are satisfactory for both groups, except their attitudes toward the cost-effectiveness of infection control. While instruments processing and personal protective equipments practices are generally acceptable for both levels
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".