Evaluating the patient sociodemographic factors affecting dental students' clinical communication skills using a three‐perspective approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess undergraduate dental students' communication skills in relation to patient sociodemographic factors using a three-perspective approach; the student, the patient, and the clinical instructor perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using validated modified-communication tools; Patient Communication Assessment Instruments (PCAI), Student Communication Assessment Instruments (SCAI), and Clinical Communication Assessment Instruments (CCAI). Moreover, 176 undergraduate clinical year students were recruited in this study whereby each student was assessed by a clinical instructor, a patient, and self-evaluation. RESULTS: The clinical communication skills domains were not significantly influenced by patient sociodemographic factors, including sex, educational background, and the number of visits (p > .05). However, this study revealed a statistically significant difference in the domain of "caring and respectful" of the SCAI between the low- and middle-income groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most of the patient sociodemographic factors did not affect clinical communication skills. However, patient income groups played a significant role in one of the communication domains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".