Managing patient mental health disclosures in Canadian dental and dental hygiene programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This narrative literature review aims to explore the current landscape regarding the management of patient mental health disclosures and gaps in resources and protocols within Canadian dental and dental hygiene programs. Methods: were used to search for literature published between 2001 and 2023. Results: A total of 54 sources were included, primarily comprising original research articles, systematic and other literature reviews. Discussion: The prevalence of mental health disclosures is rising, with 1 in 5 Canadians living with a mental health condition. Current dental and dental hygiene programs lack explicit protocols for managing patient mental health disclosures, and the literature reveals a scarcity of research on students' preparedness. This review underscores the importance of adopting humanistic language to reduce stigma and emphasizes educational institutions' roles in evaluating and facilitating mental health services to support the mental health lived experiences of dental and dental hygiene patients. Conclusion: The review identifies 3 key research gaps: the absence of qualitative research on the student experience of managing patient disclosures, unclear integration of mental health education, and a scarcity of comprehensive evaluations of mental health services. Recommendations include incorporating mental health training in entry-to-practice curricula, aligning with established community support frameworks, and creating dedicated resources for the effective management of mental health disclosures for patients in educational settings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".