Investigating the perceptions and experiences of Canadian dentists on dental regulatory bodies' communications and guidelines during the <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dental regulatory bodies aim to ensure the health and safety of dentists, dental staff patients and the public. An important responsibility during a pandemic is to communicate risk and guidelines for patient care. Limited data exist on the perceptions and experiences of dentists navigating new guidelines for mitigating risk in dental care during the pandemic. The objective of this study was to use a qualitative approach to explore how dentists in Canada experienced and perceived their regulatory bodies' communication about COVID-19 risks and guidelines during the pandemic. METHODS: Participants were Canadian dentists (N = 644) recruited through the email roster of nine provincial dental associations or regulatory bodies. This qualitative analysis was nested within a prospective longitudinal cohort study in which data were collected using online questionnaires at regular intervals from August 2020 to November 2021. To address the objective reported in this paper, a conventional qualitative content analysis method was applied to responses to three open-ended questions included in the final questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants encountered challenges and frustrations amid the COVID-19 pandemic, grappling with diverse regulations and communications from dental bodies. While some bodies offered helpful guidance, many participants felt the need for improved communication on guidelines. Dentists urged for expedited, clearer and more frequent updates, expressing difficulty in navigating overwhelming information. Negative views emerged on the vague and unclear communication of COVID-19 guidelines, contributing to confusion and frustration among participants. CONCLUSION: As COVID-19 persists and in planning for future pandemics, these experiential findings will help guide regulatory bodies in providing clear, timely and practical guidelines to protect the health and safety of dentists, dental staff, patients and the public.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".