Virtual Oral Health across Canada: A Critical Comparative Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidances during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledentistry was suggested as a cost-effective and promising approach to improve access to oral health care. In response, Canadian provincial and territorial dental regulatory authorities (DRAs) published teledentistry-related clinical practice guidances (TCPGs). However, an in-depth comparison between them is needed to understand their gaps and commonalities so as to inform research, practice, and policy. This review aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of TCPGs published by Canadian DRAs during the pandemic. A critical comparative analysis of these TCPGs published between March 2020 and September 2022 was conducted. Two members of the review team screened the official websites of dental regulatory authorities (DRAs) to identify TCPGs and performed data extraction. Among Canada's 13 provinces and territories, only four TCPGs were published during the relevant time period. There were some similarities and differences in these TCPGs, and we identified gaps pertaining to communication tools and platforms, and measures to safeguard patients' privacy and confidentiality. The insights from this critical comparative analysis and the unified workflow on teledentistry can aid DRAs in their development of new or an improvement to existing TCPGs or the development of nationwide TCP guidelines on teledentistry.
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 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".