Interprofessional learning in a student-run dental clinic: The effect on attitudes of students in oral healthcare

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of respondents according to SRDC cohort at baseline and follow-up

Cohort	Respondents	Baseline	%	Follow-up	%	Baseline & Follow-up	%
2017-D1 2017-DH3 2017-DH4	75 62 50	60 49 50	80% 79% 100%	54 47 NA	72% 75.8%	39 34 NA	52% 54.8%
2018-D1 2018-DH3	63 72	50 57	79.4% 79.2%	44 57	69.8% 79.2%	31 42	49.2% 58.3%
2019-D1 2019-DH3	65 37	65 37	100% 100%	NA NA		NA NA
Total respondents	424	368	86.8%	202	47.6%	146	34.4%

D1 = 1^st year master of dentistry students starting in SRDC, 2^nd year at follow-up

DH3 = 3^rd year bachelor of dental hygiene students starting in SRDC, 4^th year at follow-up

DH4 = 4^th year bachelor of dental hygiene students starting in SRDC (applicable only in 2017)

% = percentage of respondents

NA = not applicable

Table 2. Means and standard deviations (dental hygiene vs. dentistry students) and exposure (baseline vs. follow-up) for the two subscales underlying the RIPLS

subscale	Respondents	Mean (SD) T0	Mean (SD) T1
Teamwork & Collaboration	D	3.98 (0.3)	3.98 (0.4)
	DH	4.02 (0.4)	4.12 (0.4)
Negative Professional Identity	D	4.22 (0.5)	4.26 (0.5)
	DH	4.23 (0.6)	4.36 (0.5)

DH = dental hygiene students, D = dentistry students, SD = Standard Deviation

T₀ = baseline, T₁ = follow-up

Table 3. Regression coefficients and effect sizes of group (dental hygiene vs. dentistry students) and exposure (follow-up vs. baseline) for the two subscales underlying the RIPLS

	Teamwork & Collaboration		Negative Professional Identity
Difference	Value	Effect Size	Value	Effect Size
Between-group comparison
DH – D at T0	0.0446	0.11	0.024	0.05
DH – D at T1	0.1513*	0.38	0.108	0.21
Within-group comparison
T1 – T0 for DH	0.1103*	0.28	0.132*	0.25
T1 – T0 for D	0.0036	0.01	0.047	0.09

*P = 0.05

DH = dental hygiene students, D = dentistry students

T₀ = baseline, T₁ = follow-up

Figure 1. Prediction for “Teamwork & collaboration.”

Predicted values for entry year 2018 (for the other two entry years, the entire graph is slightly shifted in a vertical direction). Note that the range along the vertical axis corresponds to one standard deviation; if the vertical distance between two points is divided by this range, the corresponding effect size results.

Figure 2. Prediction for “Negative professional identity.”

Predicted values for entry year 2018 (for the other two entry years, the entire graph is slightly shifted in a vertical direction). Note that the range along the vertical axis corresponds to one standard deviation; if the vertical distance between two points is divided by this range, the corresponding effect size results.