↓ Skip to main content

Oral cancer screening practices of oral health professionals in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Oral cancer screening practices of oral health professionals in Australia
Published in
BMC Oral Health, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12903-017-0439-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Mariño, Satoru Haresaku, Roisin McGrath, Denise Bailey, Michael Mccullough, Ross Musolino, Boaz Kim, Alagesan Chinnassamy, Michael Morgan

Abstract

To evaluate oral cancer-related screening practices of Oral Health Professionals (OHPs - dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, and oral health therapists) practising in Victoria, Australia. A 36-item survey was distributed to 3343 OHPs. Items included socio-demographic and work-related characteristics; self-assessed knowledge of oral cancer; perceived level of confidence in discussing oral health behaviors with patients; oral cancer screening practices; and self-evaluated need for additional training on screening procedures for oral cancer. A total of 380 OHPs responded this survey, achieving an overall response rate of 9.4%. Forty-five were excluded from further analysis. Of these 335 OHP, 72% were dentists; (n = 241); either GDP or Dental Specialists; 13.7% (n = 46) were dental hygienists; 12.2% (n = 41) were oral health therapists, and the remaining 2.1% (n = 7) were dental therapists. While the majority (95.2%) agreed that oral cancer screening should be routinely performed, in actual practice around half (51.4%) screened all their patients. Another 12.8% "Very rarely" conducted screening examinations. The probability of routinely conducting an oral cancer screening was explored utilising Logistic Regression Analysis. Four variables remained statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Results indicate that the likelihood of conducting an oral cancer screening rose with increasing levels of OHPs' confidence in oral cancer-related knowledge (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.09-1.67) and with higher levels of confidence in discussing oral hygiene practices with patients (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.03-1.52). Results also showed that dental specialists were less likely to perform oral cancer screening examinations compared with other OHPs (OR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07-0.52) and the likelihood of performing an oral cancer screening decreased when the "patient complained of a problem" (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10-0.44). Only half the study sample performed oral cancer screening examinations for all of their patients. This study provides evidence of the need for further oral cancer-related education and screening training for OHPs, which is vital to enhance oral cancer prevention and early detection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 27 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 30 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,141,324
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#976
of 1,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,183
of 441,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.