METHODS: Data collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, professional students in medicine and nursing, and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full texts was done with the software MAXQDA. Full texts were analysed with regard to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a methodological quality assessment was undertaken.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies from six countries (Brazil, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somaliland and Turkey) were included. All studies reported significant results in at least one outcome measure. However, from the available literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions on the most effective interventions. No meta-analysis could be calculated due to the large heterogeneity of intervention content, evaluation design and outcome measures. Studies with contact interventions (either face-to-face or video) demonstrated attitudinal change. There was a clear lack of studies focusing on discriminatory behaviours. Accordingly, training of specific communication and clinical skills was lacking in most studies, with the exception of one study that showed a positive effect of training interview skills on attitudes. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented. The methodological quality of most studies was relatively low, with the exception of two studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an increase in studies on anti-stigma interventions among professional students in LMICs. Some of these studies used contact interventions and showed positive effects. A stronger focus on clinical and communication skills and behaviour-related outcomes is needed in future studies.
METHODS: All fourth-year undergraduate dental students (n = 69, response rate = 100%) participated in the Photodentistry learning activity developed by specialists from the areas of dentistry, arts, education, and psychology. A survey using the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) was conducted both pretest and posttest, followed by an open-ended written survey of their reflection towards the learning activity. Quantitative data were analyzed via paired t-test (P < 0.05), while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in both students' total mean empathy score and the individual scores for 8 (out of 16) items of the TEQ after the learning activity. Students stated that they had an improved understanding of managing patients in a comprehensive manner (e.g., managing medically compromised patients, performing treatment planning, communication with patients who have special health care needs). Students also reported the development of skills (e.g., observation, critical thinking) and positive attitudes (e.g., empathy, responsibility) towards patients.
CONCLUSION: Photodentistry is an effective learning approach for improving dental students' empathy and learning experience in comprehensive patient care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and ten students completed a validated questionnaire on SOC and SDLR. The percentage of marks obtained by these students in their year-end examination was used as their academic performance. The SOC scores were further divided into three hierarchical clusters using cluster analysis. The data were analyzed to determine the difference in the SDLR scores and academic performance among the three clusters. Furthermore, the relationship between SOC scores, SDLR scores, and academic performance was assessed.
RESULTS: The SDLR scores significantly increased from the low SOC cluster to the high SOC cluster (P = 0.026). However, there was no significant change in academic performance. A positive relationship was found between the SOC and the academic performance (R = +0.025; P > 0.05). The SDLR had a significant positive relationship with both SOC and academic performance (R = +0.27; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Although SOC may not have a direct influence on academic performance, SDLR can play an intermediary role. Early identification and timely intervention in students with a weak SOC and low SDLR can have a beneficial influence on their academic life.