The Prevalence of Patient Aggression Toward Dental Students at a Canadian University Teaching Clinic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies show concerning rates of occupational violence against oral health care workers, but few studies of this nature have been conducted on dental students in university clinics. METHODS: We surveyed 3rd-, 4th- and 5th-year dental students in the 2020-2021 academic year at the dental teaching clinic of the University of Montreal, using a 17-item self-report questionnaire exploring 4 types of aggression: physical, verbal, reputational and sexual. RESULTS: Of 239 students, 45 (19%) responded to the online questionnaire, and 28 (62% of respondents) reported some form of aggression in the previous year. Verbal aggression and sexual aggression were each reported by 21 (47%) students. No differences were found between rates of aggression based on ethnicity. Women (74%) reported higher rates of aggression than men (47%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Of the 6 students who said they speak a language other than French (the workplace language) at home, 5 (83%) reported experiencing sexual aggression. CONCLUSION: Most students surveyed reported experiencing some form of patient aggression in the past year. The most common forms of aggression were verbal and sexual. Women and students who speak a language other than French at home may be particularly vulnerable to patient aggression in the clinical setting. This study has implications for dental education and points to the need for training and new solutions to prevent and respond to patient aggression at university dental clinics.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".