Aims: A Virtual Dental Home (VDH) is an alternative care model using teledentistry technology to provide care in community settings for special care populations. The Dental Hygiene Department at Idaho State University developed a VDH educational program to deliver preventive and therapeutic care at an assisted-living (AL) facility for memory care residents.The purpose of the educational program was to design and implement a VDH model for AL residents, and subsequently to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational program through students' knowledge, clinical confidence, and perspectives. Methods and results:Senior dental hygiene students (n = 32) completed didactic, laboratory, and clinical experiences on implementing an VDH. Using a pretest/posttest design, data were collected using a self-generated questionnaire; validity and reliability of the questionnaire were established prior to administration. Likert data were analyzed (n = 22, 69%) using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and Bonferroni correction. The change in scores of all three variables was statistically significant. The educational program was effective for increasing knowledge, clinical confidence, and perspectives of the dental hygiene students. Conclusion: Educational programs that include didactic, laboratory, and clinical experiences prepare graduates for using alternative care models, thereby, enhancing the potential to improve access to care for vulnerable populations in community settings.

PurposeThe intent of this investigation was to describe learners’ outcomes regarding a Legislative Advocacy Project and Health Policy Advocacy Project in required leadership courses in dental hygiene curricula.MethodsThe 7‐week legislative project was completed by Bachelor of Science (BS) in a traditional classroom setting and Master of Science (MS) degree dental hygiene students in an online course. The course requirement was a written paper all enrolled students completed, which comprised a significant portion of the final grade. Objectives were developed for topics presented and active learning strategies engaged students to extend learning to a higher level. Weekly activities provided a mechanism for formative assessment, and a rubric determined whether the objectives were met for the summative assessment. In 2016, the BS course was revised to include health policy, and the policy project was implemented.ResultsThe majority of students earned A or B grades on the assignments. The overall mean for the BS legislative projects based on 4 years was 89.1 (n = 104); the MS mean based on 12 years was 92 (n = 81). The mean for the BS policy projects, based on 4 years, was 91.9 (n = 111).ConclusionsThe instructional design of both advocacy projects’ objectives, active learning strategies, and summative assessment were strategically aligned and created an effective environment for learning. Oral health practitioners who are empowered to engage in advocacy initiatives are needed in the next generation. Administrators and faculty are called to action to become leaders and advocates for advocacy education in all oral healthcare programs.

A growing body of literature suggests that today's learners have changed and education must change as well since Millennial generation students expect technology to be used in their coursework. This study sought to determine what educational technology is being used in U.S. dental hygiene programs, what student and faculty perceptions are of the effectiveness of technology, and what barriers exist to implementing educational technology. A stratiied random sample of 120 entry-level dental hygiene programs nationwide were invited to participate in a survey. Fourteen programs participated, yielding a pool of 415 potential individual participants; out of those, eighty-four student and thirty-eight faculty respondents were included in the analysis, a total of 122. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a Mann-Whitney U test (p<0.05). Faculty and student respondents agreed on the effectiveness of educational technology in all areas except clickers and wikis. The faculty members tended to rate the effectiveness of educational technology higher than did the students.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of a legislative advocacy project on the knowledge, values, and actions of dental hygiene students enrolled in a leadership course. A quasi-experimental design was employed with a convenience sample of twenty-one undergraduate and seventeen graduate students. The data collection instrument was designed by the authors with three scales (knowledge, values, and actions), a section on barriers to future advocacy actions, and two open-ended questions. Content validity of the instrument was established before it was administered with an online survey tool. Students scored their pre-project and post-project status on the three scales. Cronbach's alphas revealed internal consistency of the three scales at 0.95 or higher. Pre-project scores and post-project scores were analyzed by parametric tests and conirmed using nonparametric tests. Knowledge, values, and actions statements were statistically signiicant; however, actions were rated the lowest. Multiple barriers for future advocacy actions were identiied. Implementation of a legislative advocacy project in an undergraduate and graduate leadership course can positively inluence the development of knowledge, values, and actions; however, mentorship in the professional association is needed after graduation to continue the development of future leaders.

The aim of this study was to investigate advocacy actions of dental hygiene program alumni who had completed a Legislative Advocacy Project (LAP) when they were students in the undergraduate or graduate program. Five variables were assessed: participation, frequency, perceived barriers, engagement, and mentorship. Alumni of the undergraduate and graduate programs were compared regarding frequency of and barriers encountered to legislative advocacy actions. A descriptive-comparative research design was used with quantitative and qualitative analysis. A convenience sample of 157 alumni who had completed a seven-week LAP at Idaho State University between 2008 and 2013 were invited to complete a 52-item author-designed online questionnaire in 2015. The response rate was 41.4%. The results showed a significant difference for participation prior to and after the LAP (df=12, X=28.28, p=0.005). Most respondents, however, did not participate in legislative actions. There was a significant difference between the two groups for two frequency items: subscribing to online listservs (p=0.001) and contacting political representatives or staff (p=0.003). The three greatest barriers were time, financial resources, and testifying. The analysis found a significant difference between the two groups for the barrier of interest in advocating (p=0.05). In the qualitative analysis, themes emerged about engagement factors (collective efforts and advocacy commitment) and mentorship (mentoring experiences). Advocacy actions after graduation improved, but implementation of actions was challenging due to competing barriers. The results of this study may be useful in identifying key components of advocacy education that should be part of training programs.