Search

Objectives: To identify websites with adequate information on oral cancer screening for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to assess both their quality and contents., Study Design: Websites were identified using Google and HON medical professional search engines using the terms "screening for oral cancer". The first 100 sites retrieved by each engine were analysed using the DISCERN questionnaire (reliability), the V instrument (contents on oral cancer) and further by the Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade Level and the Flesch Reading Ease (readability)., Results: The overall rating showed minimal shortcomings in the quality of the information in the websites. The coverage and correctness of information on "visual examination" was rated as fair/good, whereas updating of contents resulted very variable (eg: 81% for visual examination and 18.2% for molecular biomarkers). These results permitted to rank the websites housing relevant information for oral cancer. Top ranking websites were affiliated to the Oral Cancer Foundation (USA), WHO Collaborating Centre for oral cancer (UK) whose webpage is entitled "Oral Cancer Education and Research", and the Clinical Guidelines maintained by the British Columbia Cancer Agency (Canada) and the British Dental Association (UK) respectively., Conclusions: There are web-based, HCP-addressed, resources on screening for oral cancer housing heterogeneous information both in quality and contents. The use of specific evaluation tools permits the selection of reliable websites on this topic with a potential to improve the existing educational gaps among HCPs.

Objectives: To describe a new bench model for oral precancer/cancer biopsy training and to assess its effectiveness in terms of trainees' perception., Study Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive, performed on 424 general dental practitioners (GDP) who undertook biopsies on a pig tongue. The participants were assessed by direct observation for 2.5 hours using specific check-lists and by means of a self-applied questionnaire., Results: The workshop was perceived as "very interesting" even by those with previous surgical experience (Xi - Xj = 0.07; 95%CI= -0.20-0.09). Most GDPs considered themselves able to undertake oral biopsies on real patients after the workshop. Those who had previously received theoretical continuous education courses on oral biopsy scored higher values within the group (Xi - Xj = 0.20; 95%CI= 0.04-0.37)., Conclusions: There is a need for including clinical abilities workshops when instructing on oral biopsy techniques. More studies are needed to validate the procedure and to address cognitive and communication skills.