| Literature DB >> 35270794 |
Ida Heitmann Løset1, Torgils Lægreid1, Ewa Rodakowska1.
Abstract
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to map dental students' experience of the study situation throughout the pandemic. All clinical dental students (year 3 to 5) at the Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Dentistry (IKO), University of Bergen (UiB), Norway, were invited. Participation was anonymous and voluntary, and the response rate was 63%. Questions regarding stress-related factors were divided into three categories. In the category «Stressors/learning», a statistically significant difference was observed between both the genders (p = 0.001) and years of study (p = 0.028). Statistically significant differences between the genders were also observed in the category «Stressors/infection» (p = 0.008). Women were significantly more stressed due to lack of clinical skills (p = 0.048), not receiving as good theoretical teaching as before the pandemic (p = 0.016), and uncertain issues around the exams (p = 0.000). Fourth year students were significantly more stressed due to lack of clinical skills (p = 0.012), for not passing the clinic/skills courses due to lack of study progression (p = 0.005), and worries about not being a good enough dentist after graduation (p = 0.002). In conclusion, the pandemic had a major impact on dental students. The most prominent stressors in relation to the study situation were experienced by students from the fourth year and female students. Clinical and theoretical learning outcomes among students were regarded as worse than before the pandemic. The students preferred in presence lectures, but experienced digital asynchronous video lectures as a good alternative. The pandemic negatively affected the students' social life. Dental schools should be aware that students have been exposed to increased distress and burden through the pandemic and should provide support for those in need.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; dental students; education; pandemic; stress
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270794 PMCID: PMC8910474 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19053102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographic and response characteristics of the participants.
| Total Number of | Number of Attended | Response Rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 134 | 84 | 63% | ||
| Gender | Men | 41 | 17 | 41% |
| Women | 93 | 67 | 72% | |
| Year of study | Year 3 | 46 | 27 | 59% |
| Year 4 | 48 | 33 | 69% | |
| Year 5 | 40 | 24 | 60% | |
Stress-related factors.
| Stress Due to: | Answers in Likert Scale | Mean ± SD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 + 2 | 3 | 4 + 5 | |||||
| The study situation during the pandemic | 7.2% | 8.4% | 83.4% | Men | 3.9 ± 0.9 | 0.218 | 0.123 |
| Women | 4.2 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.9 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 4.4 ± 0.7 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 4.0 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Category «Stressors/learning» | Men | 18.3 ± 5.0 | 0.001 * | 0.028 ** | |||
| Women | 22.5 ± 4.4 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 21.0 ± 5.5 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 23.3 ± 4.5 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 20.0 ± 3.8 | ||||||
| Lack of clinical skills as a result of lost clinical/skills training | 11.9% | 17.9% | 70.2% | Men | 3.4 ± 1.3 | 0.048 * | 0.012 ** |
| Women | 4.0 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.7 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 4.3 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.5 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Not passing the clinic/skills course due to lack of study progression | 18.0% | 21.7% | 60.3% | Men | 3.4 ± 1.0 | 0.361 | 0.005 ** |
| Women | 3.7 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.8 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 4.1 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.0 ± 1.4 | ||||||
| Not receiving as good theoretical teaching as before the pandemic, due to changed teaching methods | 27.4% | 27.4% | 45.2% | Men | 2.6 ± 1.1 | 0.016 * | 0.371 |
| Women | 3.4 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.0 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.2 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.5 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Unresolved issues around the exams | 22.6% | 17.8% | 59.6% | Men | 2.5 ± 1.1 | 0.000 * | 0.226 |
| Women | 3.9 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.6 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.3 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Patients were late, did not come or cancelled an appointment shortly before class | 17.5% | 23.1% | 59.4% | Men | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 0.069 | 0.083 |
| Women | 3.8 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.5 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 4.0 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.4 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Not being a good enough dentist when I graduate | 17.9% | 27.3% | 54.8% | Men | 3.3 ± 1.2 | 0.170 | 0.002 ** |
| Women | 3.8 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.3 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 4.2 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.3 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Category «Stressors/infection» | Men | 7.5 ± 2.1 | 0.008 * | 0.851 | |||
| Women | 9.1 ± 2.2 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 8.7 ± 2.0 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 9.0 ± 2.8 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 8.6 ± 2.2 | ||||||
| About being infected with COVID-19 during patient care | 40.5% | 7.1% | 52.4% | Men | 2.5 ± 1.6 | 0.137 | 0.808 |
| Women | 3.1 ± 1.6 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.1 ± 1.7 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 2.9 ± 1.6 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.0 ± 1.6 | ||||||
| Ending up in quarantine or home isolation during the pandemic | 42.9% | 41.6% | 15.5% | Men | 2.4 ± 1.4 | 0.055 | 0.547 |
| Women | 2.9 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 2.8 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 2.9 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 2.6 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Constant changes in restrictions and infection control routines at the department | 40.5% | 31% | 28.5% | Men | 2.7 ± 1.2 | 0.112 | 0.700 |
| Women | 3.2 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.2 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Category «Stressors/consequences» | Men | 8.9 ± 3.5 | 0.540 | 0.335 | |||
| Women | 9.5 ± 2.8 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 9.2 ± 2.6 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 9.9 ± 3.1 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 8.7 ± 2.9 | ||||||
| The study situation during the pandemic that it exceeded my concentration | 28.6% | 27.4% | 44.0% | Men | 2.6 ± 1.2 | 0.019 * | 0.106 |
| Women | 3.3 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.3 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.4 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 2.6 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| The study situation during the pandemic that it has affected my mental health | 38.1% | 32.1% | 29.8% | Men | 2.6 ± 1.6 | 0.325 | 0.489 |
| Women | 2.9 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 2.9 ± 1.1 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.0 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 2.6 ± 1.4 | ||||||
| I have thrived worse in the study compared with before the pandemic | 28.6% | 25.0% | 46.4% | Men | 3.7 ± 1.4 | 0.112 | 0.483 |
| Women | 3.1 ± 1.3 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.0 ± 1.5 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.4 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.3 ± 1.3 | ||||||
* t-test. (p < 0.05); ** One-way ANOVA-test. (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Preferred methods of theoretical teaching after the pandemic.
Learning experience.
| Answers in Likert Scale | Mean ± SD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 + 2 | 3 | 4 + 5 | |||||
| How much time have you spent studying since March 2020? | 41.7% | 33.3% | 25.0% | Men | 2.6 ± 0.8 | 0.336 | 0.568 |
| Women | 2.9 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 2.8 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| How do you assess your theoretical learning outcomes during the pandemic? | 59.5% | 25.0% | 15.5% | Men | 2.4 ± 0.7 | 0.743 | 0.483 |
| Women | 2.5 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 2.5 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 2.6 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | ||||||
| Year 4 and 5: How do you assess your learning outcome in the clinic/skills course during the pandemic? | 59.9% | 38.8% | 1.3% | Men | 1.9 ± 0.7 | 0.027 * | 0.473 |
| Women | 2.4 ± 0.7 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 2.3 ± 0.8 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 2.4 ± 0.6 | ||||||
| Year 3: How do you assess your learning outcome in the clinic/skills course during the pandemic? | 26.9% | 42.3% | 30.8% | Men | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 0.613 | - |
| Women | 3.0 ± 0.8 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 3.0 ± 0.8 | ||||||
| Has there been good enough facilitation from the department to compensate for lost clinic time/skills training? | 32.1% | 45.2% | 22.7% | Men | 3.1 ± 1.0 | 0.344 | 0.359 |
| Women | 2.8 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Year 3 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | ||||||
| Year 4 | 2.7 ± 0.9 | ||||||
| Year 5 | 3.1 ± 1.0 | ||||||
* t-test. (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Word cloud as an overview to open question answers.