Exploring the divide between dental clinicians and academics for more inclusive partnerships: perspectives on building a research network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dentists experience barriers of applying knowledge at point of care. In recent years, integrated knowledge translation (IKT) efforts, such as dental practice research networks, have been established in the US and other countries to overcome the potential barriers to dental clinicians being involved in research. In Canada, there is no formal network. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of dental clinicians and academics in building a network in Ontario that would encourage research collaboration. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from dental clinicians and academics in Ontario dental schools. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants from the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Toronto and Schulich School of Dentistry at Western University. Interviews were conducted via Zoom meetings between July and November 2023. Interviews were recorded, de-identified, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Strategies to promote rigour were applied throughout the research process. RESULTS: Twenty-six interviews were conducted (twelve dental clinicians and fourteen academics). Most participants described a divide impacting many aspects of oral health research. This divide appeared to be originating from historical cultural norms rooted in the development of organized dentistry in Ontario, current financial strains faced by dentists, and misalignment of values that resulted in miscommunications between dental clinicians and academics. Despite the divide, there appeared to be a strong desire among participants to "bridge the divide". Suggestions included starting a small network of interested individuals, enforcing existing collaborations within the universities, identifying champions in organized dentistry to advocate for establishing a formal network in Ontario, and exploring opportunities to support such a network in Canada. DISCUSSION: Despite the divide between dental clinicians and academics in oral health research, there appeared to be a strong desire to bridge the divide. This study is novel in that it reports dental clinicians' and academics' perceptions and experiences with IKT partnerships in dentistry. We offer recommendations for oral health professional leaders to build a new network.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".