British Columbia Dentists' Perceptions and Practices Regarding HPV Vaccinations: A Cross-sectional Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV), as the most common form of sexually transmitted infection, has been implicated in almost one-third of oropharyngeal cancers. One way to prevent HPV infections is through vaccination. This study aimed to investigate whether dentists in British Columbia (BC) were willing to discuss, refer and administer the vaccine in a dental practice setting. METHODS: Our cross-sectional study used a survey consisting of 14 questions pertaining to demographics, scope of practice, barriers to discussing the HPV vaccine and willingness to engage in HPV vaccination. On 1 April 2021, the survey was distributed to all practising dentists in BC via a URL link; the link remained active for 30 days. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze results, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 201 respondent who completed a survey, 168 (84%) agreed that discussing the link between HPV and oropharyngeal cancer falls within their scope of practice. Fewer agreed that recommending (74%) and administering (39%) the HPV vaccine were within their scope of practice. Barriers that may contribute to this unwillingness included lack of professional policies and guidelines. Although a significant proportion of respondents were willing to educate patients on HPV, they were unwilling to discuss sexual history in a dental setting (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a willingness to discuss and refer patients for HPV vaccination, most respondents were unwilling to administer the vaccine in a dental setting, as they perceived the act to fall outside their scope of practice. There remains a reluctance to engage in vaccination activities in dental settings in BC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".