Skip to main content

Table 2 The attitude of the dental professionals towards tropical infectious diseases and oral health (classification)

From: Investigation of the understanding on tropical infectious diseases and oral health among dental professionals in China

Content of questionnaire

Gender

Education background

Professional identity

Professional title

Tropics working experience

Male

(121)

Female

(115)

p value

Post-graduate

(174)

Graduate

(54)

Junior

(8)

p value

Doctor

(211)

Nurse

(25)

p value

Senior

(26)

Intermediate

(126)

Junior

(84)

p value

Yes

(24)

No

(212)

p value

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Focus on tropical infectious diseases and oral health

51/70

42.1%

36/79

31.3%

0.08

63/111

36.2%

22/32

40.7%

2/6

25.0%

0.65

78/13335.3%

9/16

36.0%

0.98

11/15

42.3%

44/82

34.9%

32/52

38.1%

0.74

14/10

58.3%

73/13934.4%

0.02*

Study on tropical infectious diseases and oral health systematically

34/87

28.1%

22/93

19.1%

0.11

44/130

25.3%

12/42

22.2%

0/8

0%

0.25

49/162

22.2%

7/18

28.0%

0.82

7/19

26.9%

32/94

25.4%

17/67

20.2%

0.64

10/14

41.7%

46/166

21.7%

0.03*

If working in non-tropics, it is necessary to learn about infectious diseases and oral health systematically. §

97/24

80.2%

94/21

81.7%

0.76

135/39

77.6%

48/6

88.9%

6/2

75.0%

0.07

169/42

76.5%

22/3

88.0%

0.44

23/3

88.5%

101/25

80.2%

67/17

79.8%

0.58

23/1

95.8%

168/44

79.2%

0.09

If working in tropics, it is necessary to learn about infectious diseases and oral health systematically. #

117/4

96.7%

110/5

95.7%

0.68

168/6

96.6%

52/2

96.3%

7/1

87.5%

0.43

204/7

92.3%

23/2

92.0%

0.26

25/1

96.2%

120/6

95.2%

82/2

97.6%

0.67

24/0

100%

203/9

95.8%

0.64

Identification of oral lesions is helpful to the management of tropical infectious diseases

106/15

87.6%

96/19

83.5%

0.37

149/25

85.6%

47/7

87.0%

6/2

75.0%

0.66

179/32

81.0%

23/2

92.0%

0.30

23/3

88.5%

106/20

84.1%

73/11

86.9%

0.26

21/3

87.5%

181/31

85.4%

0.37

  1. Item “*”, p < 0.05. Item “”: p value of three sub-groups comparison, there was no difference between any two sub-groups. Item “#” compared with item “§”, p < 0.05