Hand Hygiene and Cross Infection Control among Dental Auxiliaries working in Private and Public Dental Institutes of Punjab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the knowledge attitude and practices of dental assistants regarding hand hygiene and cross infection control in public and private dental institutes. Methods: Survey was carried out on 240 subjects working in five private and two public dental institutes using online questionnaires developed by the authors, and distributed via E-mail and WhatsApp. The target population were dental assistants and hygienists. Survey included a confidentiality and consent statement. Data was analyzed using the IBM SPSS version 20. Results: There were 240 respondents and majority were male. 71.3% of the participants received formal training in hand hygiene. 51.7% were aware of the presence of cross infection manual at workplace, however, fewer were aware of it contents. There was a significant difference between auxiliaries of private and public dental institutes when it comes to wearing gloves without washing hands, usage of alcohol rub and following recommended steps of hand washing. The auxiliaries of public institutes were performing hand washing before touching the patients only. Majority of the respondents especially from public institutes (38.3%) believe that hand should be dried using paper towel. Conclusion: Auxiliaries of private institutes were more aware about hand hygiene. Public institutes’ auxiliaries were lacking in knowledge and practice especially when it comes to usage of alcohol-based rub, washing hands before wearing gloves and performing hand hygiene before and after touching the patients. Regular workshop and courses should be done to keep their adherence to quality hand hygiene especially in public institutes. Keywords: American Dental Association, Center for Disease Control, Cross Infection, Dental Assistants, Hand Hygiene, Hygienists, World Health Organization
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".