Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gather data on Canadian nursing programs regarding oral health curriculum and attitudes towards oral health curriculum to evaluate the level of oral health education in nursing programs and provide a reference for understanding dental and oral health in the nursing field. METHODS: Data to inform models for oral health curriculum in nursing were collected through an online survey using a secured google form. The web-based questionnaire examined main aspects of dental and oral health in nursing educational institutions. Eligibility criteria for this study included faculty members of an accredited nursing program in Canada. RESULTS: Of the 76 institutions approached, a total of 47 nursing faculty members from 35 nursing programs responded to the online survey. The vast majority (85.1 %) of the participants stated they believe oral health should be taught within nursing programs. Relating to the current curriculum, 70.2 % of the respondents stated their institution currently teaches anatomy relating to the oral cavity, but only 38.3 % reported their institution implemented oral diseases and pathology into the curriculum. Moreover, 48.9 % of the participants noted that dental screening was not covered in the nursing curriculum; 27.7 % of the respondents stated that their institution implemented education regarding gum disease, 25.5 % noted implementing education regarding oral cancer and oral lesions screening. Overall, 80.9 % of the participants noted that future nurses should be educated about oral cancer and disease prevention. However, in order to implement dental and oral health curriculums, participants noted certain needs such as time to implement curriculum (87.2 %) and more knowledge about the topic (83 %). CONCLUSIONS: There is a current lack of content regarding dental and oral health in the curriculum of nursing programs throughout Canada. Due to this deficiency, many nursing graduates lack general knowledge about various aspects of dental and oral health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".