Michelle Roxo-Gonçalves1,2, Jéssica R Strey1, Caren S Bavaresco3, Marco Antonio T Martins1, Juliana Romanini4, Carlos Pilz2, Erno Harzheim2, Roberto Umpierre2, Manoela D Martins1, Vinicius C Carrard1,2. 1. 1 Department of Oral Pathology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) , Porto Alegre, Brazil . 2. 2 TelessaúdeRS-Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) , Porto Alegre, Brazil . 3. 3 Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Luterana do Brasil (ULBRA) , Canoas, Brazil . 4. 4 Centro de Especialidades Odontológicas/Estomatologia , Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficulties in diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions are a significant cause of delayed oral cancer diagnosis, and this difficulty may be due to gaps in knowledge. This study evaluated the diagnostic skills of primary healthcare professionals regarding oral cancer and presented them with an e-learning course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven primary healthcare professionals (32 dentists and 15 nondentists) enrolled in a 24-h course on oral medicine delivered through an e-learning platform. A test, based on 33 clinical images of oral lesions, was used to evaluate the diagnostic skills of participants. The participants were requested to classify each lesion as benign, potentially malignant, or malignant as well as to inform their clinical impression. Three specialists also took the test as the gold standard. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants completed the test. Nondentists and dentists showed a comparable sensitivity of 68.8 ± 11.1 and 63.7 ± 15.8, respectively. Specialists performed somewhat better; however, the difference was not statistically significant (81.0% ± 4.1%, p = 0.16). Dentists and specialists (70.0% ± 16.6% and 95.5% ± 3.1%, respectively) showed higher specificity than nondentists (39.3 ± 20.6, p < 0.01). Nondentists had a higher number of unanswered questions (p < 0.01) for classification and clinical impression (50.0% ±45.1% and 72.0% ± 25.0%, respectively) than dentists (5.7% ±11.9% and 19.8% ± 20%, respectively). Both dentists and nondentists had low attendance in the course (44.57% ± 37.38% and 26.53% ± 26.53%, respectively, p = 0.26). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the diagnostic skills of public health workers belonging to different professional categories. CONCLUSION: Both dentists and nondentists have a fairly good capacity for discriminating the nature of oral lesions. Early squamous cell carcinoma is the most challenging situation and remains an issue to be addressed.
BACKGROUND: Difficulties in diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions are a significant cause of delayed oral cancer diagnosis, and this difficulty may be due to gaps in knowledge. This study evaluated the diagnostic skills of primary healthcare professionals regarding oral cancer and presented them with an e-learning course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven primary healthcare professionals (32 dentists and 15 nondentists) enrolled in a 24-h course on oral medicine delivered through an e-learning platform. A test, based on 33 clinical images of oral lesions, was used to evaluate the diagnostic skills of participants. The participants were requested to classify each lesion as benign, potentially malignant, or malignant as well as to inform their clinical impression. Three specialists also took the test as the gold standard. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants completed the test. Nondentists and dentists showed a comparable sensitivity of 68.8 ± 11.1 and 63.7 ± 15.8, respectively. Specialists performed somewhat better; however, the difference was not statistically significant (81.0% ± 4.1%, p = 0.16). Dentists and specialists (70.0% ± 16.6% and 95.5% ± 3.1%, respectively) showed higher specificity than nondentists (39.3 ± 20.6, p < 0.01). Nondentists had a higher number of unanswered questions (p < 0.01) for classification and clinical impression (50.0% ±45.1% and 72.0% ± 25.0%, respectively) than dentists (5.7% ±11.9% and 19.8% ± 20%, respectively). Both dentists and nondentists had low attendance in the course (44.57% ± 37.38% and 26.53% ± 26.53%, respectively, p = 0.26). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the diagnostic skills of public health workers belonging to different professional categories. CONCLUSION: Both dentists and nondentists have a fairly good capacity for discriminating the nature of oral lesions. Early squamous cell carcinoma is the most challenging situation and remains an issue to be addressed.