Congdon Leslie McHaney, Tolle Susan Lynn, Darby Michele
Division of Dental Hygiene, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, VA, USA.
J Dent Hyg. 2012 Summer;86(3):215-22. Epub 2012 Aug 27.
The purpose of this study was to determine policies and practices regarding magnification loupes among faculty and students in accredited dental hygiene programs as measured by a 31 item, self-designed questionnaire. In addition, the study compared policies among dental hygiene programs in 2 year versus 4 year programs in terms of requirements for the use of magnification loupes.
After institutional review board approval, a 31 item self-designed questionnaire was emailed via Survey Monkey to 303 entry-level dental hygiene programs. An overall response rate of 75% was obtained. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square test of independence.
Results reveal the vast majority of programs do not require loupes for faculty or students, with only 23% of responding schools requiring students to purchase loupes and 8% requiring faculty to use loupes. More dental hygiene programs require students to wear loupes than require faculty to wear loupes. No statistically significant differences (p-value=0.54) in program policies were found requiring the purchase of magnifying loupes by students, based on 2 year and 4 year dental hygiene educational programs. Odds ratio (1.25) give the odds of students purchasing loupes in a 2 year program as 25% higher than a 4 year program. Almost two thirds of respondents reported loupes instruction as a curriculum component, although most respondents spent 2 or less hours teaching in this area. Most programs (90%) do not plan to require students to purchase loupes in the future, although the majority believes proper use of loupes should be integrated in the curriculum.
Most respondents see advantages to loupes, but clinical policies on loupes do not appear to correlate with beliefs. Educational programs in dental hygiene seem slow to adopt and require the use of loupes. Current clinical polices on loupes should be reviewed to ensure graduates experience the potential ergonomic benefits magnification brings to clinical practice during their education.
本研究旨在通过一份自行设计的包含31个条目的问卷，确定在获得认证的口腔卫生项目中，教师和学生使用放大倍率放大镜的政策和实践情况。此外，该研究还比较了两年制和四年制口腔卫生项目在使用放大倍率放大镜要求方面的政策差异。
经机构审查委员会批准后，通过Survey Monkey向303个入门级口腔卫生项目发送了一份包含31个条目的自行设计问卷。总体回复率为75%。使用描述性统计和独立性卡方检验对数据进行分析。
结果显示，绝大多数项目不要求教师或学生使用放大镜，只有23%的回复学校要求学生购买放大镜，8%要求教师使用放大镜。要求学生佩戴放大镜的口腔卫生项目比要求教师佩戴放大镜的项目更多。基于两年制和四年制口腔卫生教育项目，在要求学生购买放大倍率放大镜的项目政策方面，未发现统计学上的显著差异（p值 = 0.54）。优势比（1.25）表明，两年制项目中学生购买放大镜的可能性比四年制项目高25%。近三分之二的受访者报告称放大镜教学是课程的一个组成部分，尽管大多数受访者在该领域的教学时间为2小时或更少。大多数项目（90%）未来不打算要求学生购买放大镜，尽管大多数人认为应将放大镜的正确使用纳入课程。
大多数受访者认为放大镜有优势，但关于放大镜的临床政策似乎与观念不相关。口腔卫生教育项目在采用和要求使用放大镜方面似乎进展缓慢。应审查当前关于放大镜的临床政策，以确保毕业生在教育过程中体验到放大倍率给临床实践带来的潜在人体工程学益处。
