COVID-19 Safety: Perspectives from Dental Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic created challenges for healthcare providers, especially dental professionals in practices and universities. This study investigated dental students' concerns about COVID-19 and whether institutional communication influenced pandemic-related stressors. METHODS: An online survey designed to elicit dental students' concerns about COVID-19 was distributed to all dental students enrolled at a private non-profit academic institution in the Western United States from 26 April 2021 to 25 August 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the respondents, and Chi-square test and z-test analyses were used to compare students' experiences. RESULTS: A total of 92 dental students answered the survey. The respondents' ages ranged from 22 to 47 years. Slightly more than half (50.5%) were male and 93.3% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino. Over one-fourth of the students (27.5%) reported that they either often or always felt anxious that they might become infected with the COVID-19 virus, with 16.3% of the students expressing concern about contracting COVID-19 while on campus. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety levels about contracting COVID-19 from clinic patients or while on campus between the group of students who perceived the institution communicated effectively and those who did not. However, students who felt that the dental school clearly communicated COVID-19 protocols were more likely to believe that students took protocols seriously and expressed less concern about contracting COVID-19 by touching dental school items. CONCLUSIONS: About one-quarter of dental students expressed high levels of anxiety about being infected with COVID-19. Clear communication about COVID-19 protocols reduced students' fear of contracting COVID-19 from dental school items and strengthened their belief that other students followed protocols.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".