Workplace Sexual Harassment From Employers, Supervisors and Co‐Workers Towards Dental Hygienists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the prevalence and predictors of workplace sexual harassment (SH) from employers, supervisors and co-workers towards dental hygienists. METHODS: Survey research was conducted with a convenience sample of dental hygienists in the United States and Canada (n = 372). The validated Sexual Experiences Questionnaire-Department of Defense-Shortened (SEQ-DOD-S) was utilised to assess the prevalence of workplace SH experiences over 24 months with an open-ended question about career-wide SH experiences. Descriptive, correlation and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: The completion rate was 77.4% (n = 288). About 40% of participants had experienced workplace SH from employers, supervisors or co-workers. Male employers were the primary perpetrators of SH, with most respondents reporting 1-10 (80.7%) acts of SH. The most common forms of SH were sexist behaviour (43.1%), crude or offensive behaviour (37.5%), unwanted sexual attention (17.7%) and sexual coercion (6.6%). Predictors of experiencing sexist behaviour were age (B = -0.40, p = 0.003, OR [odds ratio] = 0.96), entry-level dental hygiene degree (B = -1.11, p = 0.03, OR = 0.33) and highest degree earned (B = 0.68, p = 0.04, OR = 1.97). The predictor of unwanted sexual behaviour was age (B = -0.052, p = 0.26, OR = 0.949). For every 1-year increase in age, the odds of experiencing sexist behaviour decreased by 4%, and the odds of experiencing unwanted sexual attention decreased by 5%. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest a high prevalence of workplace SH from male employers, supervisors and co-workers towards clinical dental hygienists in the sample. Increasing age and entry-level dental hygiene degree suggest the need for workplace education and policies to address sexual harassment with particular attention to younger dental hygienists.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".