Uncertainties around COVID-19 from the perspectives of oral health care workers during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The first wave of COVID-19 infections caused disturbances in all aspects of personal and professional lives. The aim of this study was to explore the ways in which that first wave of novel coronavirus infections resulted in uncertainties, as experienced by members of the oral health care workforce in British Columbia, Canada. Methods This qualitative inquiry purposefully recruited frontline oral health care workers, including dentists, dental hygienists, certified dental assistants, and administrative staff, via remote semi-structured interviews between April 20 and May 4, 2020. Coding, categories, and themes were inductively assigned. Results A total of 45 interviews, lasting between 39 and 74 minutes each, were conducted involving 18 dentists (6 females), 12 dental hygienists (11 females), 6 certified dental assistants (all females), and 9 administrators/front-desk staff (7 females). Fifty-one hours of audio recordings and more than 650 single-spaced pages of transcripts were produced. Five main themes emerged pertaining to uncertainties surrounding COVID-19, patient care, personal lives and infectiousness, concern for the future, and variations among different pandemics. Certitudes were less evident, but surfaced mostly when considering a potential new normal resulting from the pandemic. Conclusion Participants indicated that the uncertainties they felt were dependent upon what is known, and unknown, about the pandemic and the provision of oral health care during the first wave of infections. Future studies are needed to include the viewpoints of oral health care workers from other provinces, as well the perceptions of patients who received oral health care during the height of the first wave of the pandemic
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".