Lance Brendan Young

The COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid transition to online education, including simulations. The current study identified students' perceptions of communicating with standardized patients in a virtual setting.
This qualitative study thematically analyzed 485 reflections submitted by 248 students between Spring 2020 and Spring 2022. Statements describing both the virtual medium and dyadic interactions between students and patients were coded for emergent themes and also coded as positive (facilitative) or negative (critical).
Four themes emerged from the data related to the virtual medium: impact on nonverbal communication, patient engagement/rapport, presentation aids, and listening. Within these broad themes, 13 subthemes were identified, nine of which were negative/critical. Technology problems were specifically identified as compromising both engagement and listening. Even when technology worked well, students noted that it reduced the number of message cues received from the patient and complicated the process of sending cues (e.g., by requiring students to look away from a patient's face to make "eye contact" through a camera).
Overall, students were critical of Zoom's impact on dyadic factors with standardized patients. However, they did acknowledge some positive aspects regarding the technology. These findings provide a foundation to consider when teaching students how to communicate effectively via teledentistry.

PURPOSETo maintain accreditation status, predoctoral dental programs in the United States and Canada are required to train future dentists in the fundamentals of behavioral sciences. Each program independently determines how to fulfill this task, and little information exists on the consistency of training across programs. The purpose of this study was to identify the range of topics currently taught in predoctoral dental programs in the United States and Canada, who teaches them, and the modes of instruction and assessment. METHODSInvitations to complete an online survey were emailed to faculty responsible for, or familiar with, the behavioral sciences curricula at 75 predoctoral dental programs in the United States and Canada. Questions elicited information on behavioral sciences education at each program, including instructor background, topics taught, instructional and assessment methods, and sources of content. RESULTSOf those invited, 27 (36%) completed surveys. Per the responses, prototypical behavioral sciences programs usually consist of didactic/lecture format teaching, mostly during the first 2 years of the predoctoral program, by a dentist who assesses students using multiple-choice or true/false exams. The results indicated, however, substantial variation in what is taught, how it is taught, who teaches it, and how it is assessed. CONCLUSIONSWhile being a requirement for accreditation, this study demonstrated how behavioral and social sciences topics, teaching strategies, and assessments, along with the individuals teaching those topics varied across predoctoral programs. Consistency, coordination, and clinical integration are possible ways of enhancing behavioral science instruction.

Introduction Clinician empathy can improve patient outcomes, but the literature is scant on patient‐based, student‐led experiences to demonstrate the projection of empathy in patient interactions. Purpose/objectives (1) Develop a learning guide for observable behaviors communicating emotional and cognitive empathy and (2) determine whether the learning guide can be used as a rubric for assessing empathy in a standardized patient experience. Methods Eleven standardized patients assessed 80 D3 students using a 4‐point interval scale on 19 behavioral criteria in four domains: Initiation (four criteria); Health History and Caries Risk (four criteria); Treatment Planning (six criteria); and Communication Skills (five criteria). Standardized patients also provided qualitative feedback. Results Standardized patients completed all 1520 interval scales on the rubric and 94% of 320 open‐ended entries. Students performed well. Of the 1520 criterion interval scales, 1242 (81.7%) were rated “excellent.” Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests revealed Initiation scores (Mean [M] = 3.82, Standard deviation [SD] = 0.28) and Treatment Planning scores (M = 3.82, SD = 0.36) were significantly higher than Health History Scores (M = 3.75, SD = 0.34; p  < 0.05). Qualitative feedback also was overwhelmingly positive for Treatment Planning and more equivocal for Health History. Conclusions The emulation model for students to demonstrate observable aspects of empathy is viable as both a learning guide and evaluation rubric in a standardized patient format. The next steps include the development of a succinct skillset for reinforcement in the patient setting and continued discussion on what best captures core observable aspects of empathy.

The COVID-19 pandemic altered the methodologies of dental education delivery, resulting in both immediate and more enduring changes. To assess student perceptions of learning effectiveness, graduating dental students from the class of 2020 were surveyed to identify student comfort with technology and content retention, individual motivation and mental focus, and access to resources pertaining to an abrupt transition to a virtual learning didactic seminar approach in March 2020.
a voluntary, 18-question electronic survey was distributed to fourth-year dental students prior to graduation to assess perceptions of learning outcomes and preferences of a virtual seminar format relative to previous in-person didactic seminars experienced.
34 of 80 dental students (42.5%) completed the electronic survey. Comfort and retention of concepts through virtual learning were reported ≥ by 91% and 85% of the respondents, respectively. Increased distractions and multitasking were reported with virtual learning in 56% and 71%, respectively. Desires to have all teaching conducted through virtual learning platforms was reported at 21%.
the positive student responses obtained when comparing virtual to in-person seminars in the survey assessment demonstrates the long-term potential for such delivery modalities to be intentionally incorporated into an evolving predoctoral curriculum in a hybrid nature.

Despite growing recognition of the high rates of sexual violence experienced by men serving in the U.S. military, male victimization, specifically sexual assault in military (SAIM), is an understudied topic. We qualitatively describe servicemen’s awareness and perceptions of male SAIM, and their understanding of common barriers to servicemen reporting sexual assault. Participants included Midwestern Active Component and Reserve and National Guard servicemen, actively serving or Veteran, who had returned from Iraq or Afghanistan deployments during Operation Enduring/Iraqi Freedom eras. Eleven focus groups were held with 34 servicemen (20 Reserve/National Guard and 14 Active Component). Qualitative analyses used inductive and deductive techniques. Servicemen reported a lack of awareness of male SAIM, a tendency to blame or marginalize male victims, and substantial barriers to reporting sexual assault. Reserve/National Guard participants emphasized barriers such as a perception of greater stigma due to their unique status as citizen-soldiers, an ethos of unit conformity and leadership modeling, and a lack of confidence in leadership and the SAIM reporting process. In contrast, Active Component servicemen emphasized the deployment location and sex of victim and perpetrator as key reporting barriers. Findings make an important contribution to the scant literature on risk and protective factors for male SAIM and servicemen’s perceptions of sexual violence and assault reporting barriers by their service type and location. This work has implications for routine screening for sexual violence experiences of male service members and Veterans. Providers’ knowledge of gender stereotypes regarding sexual assault, assault risks and experiences of deployed servicemen, and potential barriers to SAIM disclosure is vital for patient-centered care delivery. Additional research to address factors that influence post-SAIM care engagement of males is indicated.

•Intensive referral to addiction support groups standardizes practice.•We conducted a trial of rural-adapted intensive referral (RAIR) at three sites.•Only one-third of intervention patients received all three sessions.•At six-month follow-up, control and intervention groups differed little.•Three dose patients were significantly more alcohol-abstinent than zero dose ones.
A multisite field trial testing whether improved outcomes associated with intensive referral to mutual help groups (MHGs) could be maintained after the intervention was adapted for the circumstances and needs of rural veterans in treatment for substance use disorder (SUD).
In three Veterans Affairs treatment programs in the Midwest, patients (N=195) received standard referral (SR) or rural-adapted intensive referral (RAIR) and were measured at baseline and 6-month follow-up.
Both groups reported significant improvement at 6-months, but no significant differences between SR and RAIR groups in MHG participation, substance use, addiction severity, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Inconsistent delivery of the intervention resulted in only one-third of the RAIR group receiving the full three sessions, but this group reported significantly greater 6-month abstinence from alcohol than those receiving no sessions.
Further research should explore implementation problems and determine whether consistent delivery of the intervention enhances 12-step facilitation.
The addition of rural-specific elements to the original intensive referral intervention has not been shown to increase its effectiveness among rural veterans.