ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of an instrument to measure the perception of occupational safety and health among Peruvian dentists.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dentists encounter a variety of occupational hazards in the practice of dentistry, with the potential to impact their general well-being and the quality of service provided to patients. This study aimed to validate an instrument for measuring the perception of occupational safety and health among Peruvian dentists. This was an instrumental study in which 379 Peruvian dentists participated. The instrument on the perception of occupational safety and health in dentists was adapted and validated using the NTP 182 (Self-assessment survey of working conditions) as a reference. Content validity was assessed by means of the Aiken V. The internal structure was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The internal consistency of the instrument was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. The content analysis by expert judges supports the representativeness of the items related to the construct. Four dimensions were established by means of the EFA, PCA and CFA: work demands and well-being, ergonomics and physical conditions of the environment, safety and risk prevention, and working conditions and worker protection. Regarding the AFC, adequate fit indices were evidenced: Chi-square (χ
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.