Global Status of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Tobacco Cessation Interventions Among Dental Professionals: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the emergence of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, globally the use of tobacco has decreased notably, although, it still requires efforts at individual, organizational, community level to decrease the rate further. Dental professionals are at an excellent position to provide tobacco cessation counselling and interventions, however, it is not practiced much due to lack of training and lack of knowledge. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to assess the global status of knowledge, attitude and practice on tobacco cessation interventions among dental professionals. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A systematic search of 6 databases with no language restriction since 2000 was undertaken. Studies were included if they assessed knowledge, attitude and practice on tobacco cessation interventions among dental professionals using a validated or prevalidated tool. The data obtained for assessment of knowledge, attitude, practice, curriculum and barriers were represented through heatmaps. Quality assessment of the studies was done using Newcastle Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Fifty six studies were included in this systematic review. Majority of the studies were found to be of moderate quality. Knowledge regarding the tobacco cessation interventions was more theoretical than practical. All the studies showed a favorable attitude among dental professionals towards tobacco cessation intervention. CONCLUSION: The included studies lack homogeneity in assessing knowledge, attitude and practice on tobacco cessation interventions. The development and validation of a standardized questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitude and practice on tobacco cessation interventions could be a potentially effective way to uniformly gather data on the subject.
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 | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".