Prevalence of Sexuality Implicit Bias in Entry-Level Dental Hygiene Students.

Q2 Dentistry
Monica Drew, Emily Ludwig, Jessica Suedbeck, Adaira Howell
{"title":"Prevalence of Sexuality Implicit Bias in Entry-Level Dental Hygiene Students.","authors":"Monica Drew, Emily Ludwig, Jessica Suedbeck, Adaira Howell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b> Bias and discrimination may create barriers and affect the delivery of culturally competent care to sexual minorities. An awareness of biases early in education may promote more equitable oral health care delivery to diverse populations. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of sexuality-implicit attitudes in entry-level dental hygiene students at one university.<b>Methods</b> This cross-sectional survey study included a convenience sample of dental hygiene students from one university (n=74). The Implicit Associations Test (IAT), a validated tool for measuring implicit bias, was modified for use in dentistry with permission from Project Implicit<sup>®</sup> The IAT requires participants to rapidly pair two social groups, in this case, homosexual and heterosexual individuals, with either positive or negative attributes (words/concepts), using the \"E\" and \"I\" computer keyboard keys. Faster average response times to pairings indicates a preference for a group. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the means between groups and determine the prevalence of sexuality implicit biases. Independent samples t-test was utilized to examine differences in the level of implicit bias based on the year in the dental hygiene program (<i>p</i><0.05). One-way between-subjects ANOVA was used to examine differences in age groups (<i>p</i><0.05).<b>Results</b> Seventy dental hygiene students (n=70) completed the survey, (n=34 first year, n=36 second year). The average overall implicit score for first-year students was 0.001 (no sexuality preference), and 0.069 for second-year students (no sexuality preference). No statistically significant differences were found when comparing year in dental hygiene program and age groups.<b>Conclusion</b> Undergraduate dental hygiene students had no sexuality bias for straight or gay individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":52471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists'' Association","volume":"99 5","pages":"39-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists'' Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Bias and discrimination may create barriers and affect the delivery of culturally competent care to sexual minorities. An awareness of biases early in education may promote more equitable oral health care delivery to diverse populations. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of sexuality-implicit attitudes in entry-level dental hygiene students at one university.Methods This cross-sectional survey study included a convenience sample of dental hygiene students from one university (n=74). The Implicit Associations Test (IAT), a validated tool for measuring implicit bias, was modified for use in dentistry with permission from Project Implicit® The IAT requires participants to rapidly pair two social groups, in this case, homosexual and heterosexual individuals, with either positive or negative attributes (words/concepts), using the "E" and "I" computer keyboard keys. Faster average response times to pairings indicates a preference for a group. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the means between groups and determine the prevalence of sexuality implicit biases. Independent samples t-test was utilized to examine differences in the level of implicit bias based on the year in the dental hygiene program (p<0.05). One-way between-subjects ANOVA was used to examine differences in age groups (p<0.05).Results Seventy dental hygiene students (n=70) completed the survey, (n=34 first year, n=36 second year). The average overall implicit score for first-year students was 0.001 (no sexuality preference), and 0.069 for second-year students (no sexuality preference). No statistically significant differences were found when comparing year in dental hygiene program and age groups.Conclusion Undergraduate dental hygiene students had no sexuality bias for straight or gay individuals.

初级口腔卫生专业学生性内隐偏见的流行情况。
偏见和歧视可能会造成障碍,并影响向性少数群体提供符合文化要求的护理。在早期教育中意识到偏见可能会促进向不同人群提供更公平的口腔卫生保健服务。摘要本研究旨在了解某大学初级口腔卫生专业学生性隐态度的流行程度。方法采用横断面调查法,抽取某高校口腔卫生专业学生74名。内隐联想测试(IAT)是一种有效的测量内隐偏见的工具,经隐式项目(Project Implicit®)许可,被修改用于牙科。IAT要求参与者使用电脑键盘上的“E”和“I”键,快速配对两个社会群体,在这种情况下,同性恋和异性恋个体,具有积极或消极的属性(单词/概念)。对配对更快的平均反应时间表明对一个组的偏好。描述性统计用于评估组间的均值,并确定性别内隐偏见的流行程度。使用独立样本t检验来检验口腔卫生课程中不同年份的内隐偏差水平的差异。结果70名口腔卫生专业学生(n=70)完成了调查,(n=34, n=36)。一年级学生的平均内隐得分为0.001(无性取向),二年级学生的平均内隐得分为0.069(无性取向)。在口腔卫生项目的年份和年龄组间比较,没有发现统计学上的显著差异。结论口腔卫生专业本科学生对异性恋和同性恋者均无性别偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Dental Hygiene is the refereed, scientific publication of the American Dental Hygienists’ Association. It promotes the publication of original research related to the practice and education of dental hygiene. It supports the development and dissemination of a dental hygiene body of knowledge through scientific inquiry in basic, applied, and clinical research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信