Dental Professionals' Knowledge and Understanding of Intimate Partner Violence: A Pan‐Canadian Cross‐Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global health concern, with over a quarter of women and girls worldwide experiencing IPV at least once in their lifetime. Previous research has indicated that dentists often lack the training and confidence to handle IPV-related concerns in clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to examine dental professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and solutions offered to victims regarding IPV-related concerns. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in a survey format was administered across Canada to collect responses from dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, and dental assistants. The questions in the survey were designed to evaluate professionals' knowledge of IPV, comfort levels addressing the topic with their patients, attitudes toward IPV, and knowledge of intervention resources. RESULTS: Overall, 327 dental professionals completed the survey, with 183 dentists, 77 dental assistants, 60 dental hygienists, and 5 dental therapists. Most dental professionals indicated that they have not received training related to IPV at any point either during their education (88%) or career (81%). Furthermore, most dental professionals reported that they did not feel comfortable speaking to patients about IPV-related concerns (51%) nor did they feel prepared to provide referrals or resources to victims. However, dental professionals generally feel that they do have a role in responding to IPV-related events (55%) and would like more training on this topic (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Dental professionals largely believe that they are key responders to assist potential IPV victims and appear willing to take steps toward doing so. This study's findings also indicate that there is not currently widespread access to the tools, protocols, and educational resources that could facilitate this assistance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".