Human immunodeficiency virus related discrimination in general dentistry

Objectives:

To investigate HIV related discrimination among general dentists in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; and to list factors affecting or causing healthcare providers to discriminate people living with HIV (PLWH).

Methods:

The current study takes place in Jeddah, western Saudi Arabia. The duration for accepting all responses was between March and November, 2017. In this cross-sectional study, we used a self-administered, structured questionnaire. The sample size was 430 general dentists practicing in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Descriptive statistics, mean, and standard deviation were calculated. Bivariate and multivariate analysis was carried out at p<0.05 level of significance. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for data analysis.

Results:

In our study population, the total HIV related discrimination was 67.4%. Approximately 98.1% defer PLWH to the last appointment of the day, while 84.7% refer them to specialists. Furthermore,100% reported wearing double gloves, and 94.7% where wearing protective eye shields if they encounter HIV-patient in the clinic. Male participants were found to be 23% more likely to be discriminative compared to female participants, Moreover, participants who are confident to provide both surgical and non-surgical dental treatment for PLWH were found to be 52% less likely to be discriminative towards PLWH. Also, HIV discrimination is 33% higher in the private practice compared to the governmental practice.

Conclusion:

Human immunodeficiency virus related discrimination in the study population was affected by dentists’ gender, type of practice, and self-protective attitudes.

Dentists awareness and action towards domestic violence patients. A cross-sectional study among dentists in Western Saudi Arabia

Objectives:

To identify the potential factors that would predict a dentist’s awareness of domestic violence (DV), as well as the factors that influence the probability of dentists to take the required action. Also, to list the common barriers that dentists face when managing DV victims.

Methods:

In this cross-sectional study, a self-administered, structured questionnaire was sent randomly to dentists practicing in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The online survey link was emailed with a cover message that illustrated the study context. Responses were accepted from January 2016 until the end of February 2016. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22 was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analysis carried out to identify significant variables at p<0.05 level of significance.

Results:

A sample size of 151 responses were recruited. The result of multivariate models indicated that the odds of dentists’ awareness and taking actions towards DV victims were influenced by their education, clinical experience, gender, practicing sector, and qualification. Lack of training in identifying DV and embarrassment to bring up DV with patients were the most common barriers for the respondents when treating DV victims.

Conclusion:

Continuing education with regards to DV was found to be the most relevant predictor. More educational courses in this regard would empower dentists to support DV victims.