Next Article in Journal
The Dutch HbA1c Lifestyle Study (DAF-Study): Seasonal Variation of HbA1c in the Dutch Diabetes Population—Associations with Macronutrient Intake and Physical Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Diabetic Retinopathy and Macular Edema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diabetology
Volume 6
Issue 11
10.3390/diabetology6110134
diabetology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Qualitative Analysis of First-Year Dental Students’ Opinions on Diabetes Screening in the Dental Setting

by
André Priede
1,*,
Rodrigo Mariño
1,2,3,
Ivan Darby
1 and
Phyllis Lau
1,4
1
Melbourne Dental School, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
2
Centro de Investigación en Epidemiología, Economía y Salud Pública Oral (CIEESPO), Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile
3
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia
4
Department of General Practice, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diabetology 2025, 6(11), 134; https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6110134
Submission received: 30 July 2025 / Revised: 11 September 2025 / Accepted: 28 October 2025 / Published: 3 November 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: As the global incidence of diabetes continues to rise, expanding the scope of practice for primary healthcare professionals is essential in addressing the type 2 diabetes (T2D) epidemic. Oral health is bidirectionally linked to systemic health, and dentists are in a unique position to engage in preventative activities, such as disease screening. The aim of this study was to investigate first-year dental students’ perceptions of screening for diabetes, and to explore their intentions to implement screening on graduation. Methods: First-year dental students (n = 98) were asked to write an essay about their views and attitudes to diabetes screening in the dental setting. Consent was provided by 51 students for their essays to be thematically analysed. Results: The study found that students’ intentions to perform screening after graduation are shaped by their diabetes knowledge, views on screening protocols, awareness of professional roles, and experience with interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions: The dental setting is an ideal location for increasing opportunistic diabetes screening in primary care. Most first-year dental students viewed diabetes screening favourably and intended to implement after graduation. However, the study indicates changes in dental education and practice are required to equip students with the skills and knowledge needed for diabetes screening. The dental students that participated in this study represent the future dental professionals whose knowledge and attitudes to diabetes and disease screening will determine the future uptake of this initiative.

1. Introduction

Diabetes is a public health challenge, characterized by significant morbidity and mortality rates worldwide, ranking among the top 10 causes of death globally [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than 800 million adults are living with diabetes [2], and 15% are living with prediabetes (PD) [3], a precursor to type 2 diabetes (T2D). Additionally, many people living with diabetes are unaware they have the condition. In the UK, for example, an estimated 1 million adults lived with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) between 2013 and 2019 [3].
PD and T2D can be identified in the primary health-care setting, and effective interventions are available that may prevent or delay the onset of diabetes and reduce the risk of complications [4]. In Australia, a two-step method has been suggested for screening PD and T2D. The first step is using a validated risk assessment tool, the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment (AUSDRISK), to categorize the population into different risk levels. Individuals identified as high risk then undergo diagnostic blood testing to confirm their diabetes status [5].
Although there is support for a risk-driven diabetes detection approach, diabetes screening remains underutilised in primary care [6]. Given the established bidirectional link between diabetes and oral health [7], and the fact that more than half of Australian adults visit the dentist annually [8], including some who do not regularly visit medical professionals (GPs) [9], the dental setting has been suggested as an additional location for diabetes screening [10]. Previous studies have demonstrated that diabetes screening in the dental setting is effective [11], and oral healthcare professionals (OHPs) [12] and patients [13] have reported it to be feasible and acceptable.
Though early detection of PD and T2D is widely recognised for its benefits in reducing disease burden and raising awareness of the condition [14], the literature cites several barriers that prevent OHPs from implementing diabetes screening in their practices. Obstacles reported include the time and cost of screening, lack of knowledge and formal training about T2D and diabetes screening methodology, and concerns about whether diabetes screening was part of an OHP’s roles and responsibilities [15]. There are also significant gaps in healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) knowledge about PD screening, diagnosis, and management [16]. To overcome these deficits in knowledge and skills, additional education and training are required on the association between oral health and diabetes, and the dentists’ role in disease prevention and management [17].
Dentists undergo a multi-phase learning process that begins with their initial dental education and training. In Australia, dentists must complete either a minimum five-year undergraduate degree or a four-year postgraduate doctoral course [18]. The objectives of dental education are to address the oral health needs of the community and to improve the oral health status of the population [19]. To achieve this, dental schools should be preparing dental students for their future role in primary healthcare. New graduates should be equipped with the knowledge and skills to assess and manage their patients, and to collaborate as part of a multidisciplinary healthcare team [20]. Additionally, they should possess the knowledge and training to provide preventative health screening and education on general health to their patients, enabling them to adopt an expanded role in primary healthcare [21].
Evidence suggests insufficient knowledge exists amongst qualified HCPs about the bidirectional association between diabetes and oral health [22]. Knowledge deficits may influence dentists’ decisions to offer diabetes screening to eligible individuals [23]. Additionally, personal beliefs may also be an important influence on dentists’ behaviours. For instance, when HCPs have a negative attitude towards PD, they are less likely to implement diabetes prevention guidelines and believe that PD is a high priority for them [24]. Conversely, a favourable attitude towards PD screening amongst HCPs results in a high uptake of screening practices [25].
Despite the critical need for effective diabetes management and screening, limited research exists regarding dentists’ education and training in managing patients with diabetes and providing preventative screening.
Shimpi et al. found that, overall, 60% of the dentists reported having received training to manage patients with diabetes, but for those who graduated in or before 2000, only 50% had obtained education on diabetes management [26]. In Japan, most undergraduate dental students surveyed before commencing clinical training were aware that periodontal therapy improves the outcomes of systemic diseases such as diabetes [27]. A US study of dental students’ attitudes towards managing people with T2D found 84% of students were willing to provide glucose monitoring and screening if provided with sufficient training [28].
The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes and opinions of first-year dental students on opportunistic diabetes screening in the private dental setting, and to assess their willingness to implement this approach on graduation. This study focuses on first-year dental students enrolled in the Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) program at the University of Melbourne in 2023. It is an entry-to-practice graduate program of four years duration, after which graduates are eligible to apply for registration as a general dental practitioner [29]. At the time of data collection, first-year students had completed a three-year bachelor’s degree, with the prerequisite subjects of anatomy, biochemistry, and physiology at a second-year University level and one semester of the four-year DDS course. The first semester introduces the foundational knowledge, skills, preclinical experience, and clinical education required for safe dental practice.

2. Materials and Methods

In August 2023, the 98 students in the first year of the Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) were required to submit an assessment task for the Foundations of Dental Practice subject (DENT90113). The assessment task was compulsory. The word limit was 1000 words, and it was submitted online as a PDF document via the Learning Management System. The task description is in Box 1.
Box 1. Essay question.
You are a dentist working in a busy suburban Melbourne private practice. Recently your beloved 48-year-old Uncle has been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) with retinopathy. This has prompted you to consider the role oral healthcare professionals can play in the early detection of medical conditions in the dental setting. Your own research has uncovered a screening tool called the Australian T2D Risk Assessment Tool (AUSDRISK), which has been employed to screen for T2D in primary healthcare settings. In this essay discuss the potential benefits and the barriers to screening asymptomatic individuals for diabetes in your private practice.
Based on your research and assessment, will you incorporate diabetes screening into your routine dental examinations? Provide the evidence you have based your decision on.
With the approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Melbourne (Ethical approval no: 28246), students enrolled in the second year of the Doctor of Dental Surgery, Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne 2024 were asked to provide explicit consent for their essays written six months earlier, during their first year as dental students at the Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne to be included in this study. Participating essays for those students that consented were collected by the principal researcher (AP).
The essays were thematically analysed using the six-step approach recommended by Braun and Clarke of data familiarisation, identification of initial codes, theme generation, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and reporting findings [30]. The primary researcher (AP) managed the analysis using NVivo 14 (QSR International, Victoria). Researchers began by familiarising themselves with the content by reading and rereading the essays. Each essay was then independently coded by two researchers, and the initial codes generated were revised and refined by consensus. An inductive approach was used to analyse the data, with semantic codes identified by highlighting words from the text that represented thoughts or concepts related to diabetes screening implementation. These codes were then organised into themes and sub themes, and these were then refined following discussion by all researchers.

3. Results

Fifty-one students gave consent for participation in the study (52% response rate). These 51 essays were included for thematic analysis. Findings were categorised into four main domains: diabetes knowledge, the screening protocol, scope of practice, and interprofessional communication and collaboration. Each domain encompassed various sub-themes that elucidate the complexities surrounding diabetes screening in dental settings. These subthemes were classified as either barriers or facilitators to adopting screening upon graduation (See Table 1).

3.1. Diabetes Knowledge

3.1.1. Diabetes Is a Very Common and Serious Condition

Students reported that diabetes is prevalent in Australia and globally, and its prevalence is increasing. Most students classified diabetes as a disease with very serious consequences for the quality of life of individuals, and a condition responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in the community.
Overall, the students were aware of some of the complications of diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, eye, and kidney disease. However, foot problems and emerging complications, such as the psychological impacts of diabetes management and cancer, were not reported by the first-year students. Additionally, PD was not cited as a diabetes risk factor by the majority of the students.

3.1.2. There Is an Association Between Oral Health and Diabetes

Students described the strong association between diabetes and oral diseases, and the risk factors shared by these chronic diseases.
“T2D is of particular interest to dentists because it is a well-established risk factor for periodontal disease.”
Student 16
Some of the students understood the link between diabetes and periodontal diseases is bi-directional, reporting that diabetes increases the risk for developing and the severity of periodontitis, while periodontitis worsens glycaemic control.
“The severity of periodontal disease conversely affects body glycemic control and predisposes an individual to diabetes.”
Student 17
These acknowledgements were considered facilitators to include screening as part of their role in patient care.

3.2. The Screening Protocol

3.2.1. Individuals and the Community Benefit from Diabetes Screening

The data indicated that dental students believed that if diabetes is detected at an early stage, it enables appropriate interventions to be implemented, which potentially may alter the course of the disease.
“Reducing the risk of complications, in turn, reduces mortality rates and eases the economic burden on the public and the healthcare system.”
Student 21
This understanding acts as a facilitator for screening as a proactive measure in promoting overall health. A commonly held view among students was that participating in diabetes screening has the additional benefit of increasing an individual’s awareness of the condition and improving their understanding of the risk factors associated with it.
“Patients with pre-diabetes who are simply made aware of their condition via screening tools such as AUSDRISK are more likely to make lifestyle modifications than patients who are unaware of their condition.”
Student 22
The students also noted that diabetes screening may improve participants’ knowledge and awareness of the association between oral health and systemic health.
“Diabetes screening in dental settings can raise awareness surrounding the connection between diabetes and dental health, particularly to periodontal disease.”
Student 1

3.2.2. AUSDRISK Is an Appropriate Tool to Screen for Diabetes

Students believed the Australian T2D Risk Assessment Tool (AUSDRISK) was an appropriate, simple, non-invasive method to detect adults at an increased risk of PD and T2D. Students noted that its simplicity and ease of use made it a valuable resource in dental practices.
“AUSDRISK tool …. is easy to integrate, is a reliable predictor for diabetes risk, and encourages holistic, patient-centred, and collaborative care.”
Student 40

3.2.3. Additional Time and Resources Are Required for Screening

Despite the recognition of diabetes screening’s importance, many students expressed concerns about the barriers to adopting routine diabetes screening in private dental practice. These included the time, cost, and resources required to implement screening protocols.
“Unfortunately, there is no compensation for the cost and time invested when using AUSDRISK.”
Student 18

3.2.4. No Remuneration for Screening

A recurrent theme in the data was that there was no financial compensation for the additional costs and time required for screening. The students observed that primary health care funding and payment models in Australia do not support OHPs screening for diabetes.
“Lack of economic incentive to conduct screening tests further impedes the initiation and sustained conduct of screening programs.”
Student 12

3.2.5. Diabetes Screening May Disrupt Workflow

Many students noted that diabetes screening may interfere with the usual order of tasks to be completed in a routine clinical consultation. The integration of screening protocols was seen as a potential source of inefficiency, leading to resistance among some students to integrate screening within their dental practices.
“This may create more uncertainty and potential delays with regard to scheduling, as some patients will naturally require more discussion, whilst others will not, which may impact the daily operation of dental clinics.”
Student 1

3.2.6. Misunderstanding Disease Screening and the Screening Steps

A common misunderstanding amongst students was the concept of disease screening and the steps required to complete a diabetes screening protocol. Some examples of screening misconceptions include:
  • The risk result is based on the clinician’s objective assessment of the patient.
“Selection of patients that are deemed at risk is limited to the clinician’s own understanding of diabetes risk.”
Student 13
  • A risk assessment is to be used for people with overt symptoms of T2D, and it is recommended that they attend their GP for a diagnostic blood test.
“For example, only patients who are symptomatic, adopt unusually poor diets, or has a family history of diabetes should be screened.”
Student 9
  • The AUSDRISK tool diagnoses T2D or PD.
“Screening tool may also lead to overdiagnosis of T2D or conversely may miss diagnosis and give patients a false sense of security.”
Student 5

3.2.7. Referral Compliance Is a Barrier to Diabetes Screening

Generally, referral compliance emerged as a barrier, with dental students expressing concerns about low patient participation in medical follow-up, limiting the effectiveness of the diabetes screening tool.
“Poor referral compliance amongst individuals screened for diabetes in the dental setting affects the optimal outcome of screening procedure.”
Student 17

3.3. Scope of Practice

3.3.1. Diabetes Screening Is the Role and Responsibility of a Dentist

There was widespread consensus among students that screening for diabetes is an activity that dentists are trained for and have the skills to perform. This perspective served as a facilitator for implementation of screening practices.
“A simple and non-invasive screening tool can lie within OHPs’ scope of practice.”
Student 3

3.3.2. Diabetes Screening Is Not the Role and Responsibility of a Dentist

Several students believed that screening for diabetes was outside the responsibility of OHPs, and it may distract the clinician from their core obligation, which was managing their patients’ oral health. This belief was an impediment to providing screening.
“Patients and dentists may feel worried about receiving or giving advice that is outside the scope of practice of dentists.”
Student 26

3.3.3. Lack of Education and Training on Diabetes and the Screening Protocol

A common barrier identified by the students was that OHPs require additional education and training to support diabetes screening and address knowledge deficits about diabetes and the screening protocol.
“Glaring problem is that OHPs are not formally trained to screen for diabetes.”
Student 1

3.3.4. Optimal Patient Care Requires Managing Oral and Systemic Health

Several students acknowledged that integrating oral health into primary care was a priority to achieve the optimal health outcomes for their patients.
“The responsibilities of dentists include contribution to the general health and well-being of patients.”
Student 38
In fact, many students, when writing about the goal of integrating diabetes prevention, used the terms “holistic” and “patient-centered” as the ideal model for patient management.

3.4. Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration

3.4.1. Screening Requires Co-Operation Between OHP and GP

Many students recognised interprofessional communication and collaboration between dentists and GPs as essential for effective detection of people with undiagnosed diabetes.
“For screenings to be successful, OHPs need to work with general practitioners.”
Student 25

3.4.2. Dentists Work in a Divided Healthcare System

The current structure of the healthcare system was identified as a barrier to effective diabetes screening. Students observed that Dentistry and Medicine remain seperated within the healthcare system impeding collaborative efforts, and reducing the effectiveness of screening initiatives.
“The historical separation between OHPs and GPs has created a divide in communication between the two groups.”
Student 29

3.4.3. Diabetes Screening Promotes Interprofessional Collaboration

Many students viewed screening as an opportunity for interprofessional collaboration and communication between oral health and medical professionals.
“Foster teamwork among healthcare providers from various fields by bridging oral and systemic health knowledge.”
Student 21
Students were asked whether they would incorporate diabetes screening into routine dental consultations. The results indicate that the majority of students (n = 29; 57%) unequivocally stated they intended to screen for T2D upon graduation. Another 13 students (25%), although willing to adopt diabetes screening, expressed conditional intentions based on the addressing of identified barriers. On the other hand, nine students (18%) indicated that they would not implement diabetes screening in their private dental practice.

4. Discussion

Most students viewed diabetes screening positively and planned to implement it after graduation. The study found various factors that influence students’ intention to conduct screening upon graduation, including their current knowledge of diabetes, perceptions of the screening protocol, understanding of their professional scope of practice, and observations about interprofessional collaboration.

4.1. Diabetes Knowledge

Health providers’ diabetes knowledge can influence their engagement in preventative activities, such as diabetes screening [31]. First-year students demonstrated adequate overall knowledge about diabetes but exhibited significant gaps regarding complications and risk factors. While they recognised diabetes as a common global condition with serious health repercussions, they overlooked key complications like foot problems and the psychological impacts of diabetes management [32]. Additionally, many students did not identify PD as a precursor to T2D. Although students acknowledged the oral manifestations of diabetes, including an increased risk of periodontal disease, only a few understood the bidirectional relationship between diabetes and oral health.
Previous research shows variable findings in dental students’ knowledge about diabetes. While some studies have reported inadequate understanding [33], others indicate acceptable knowledge, particularly in senior students [34]. Additionally, significant knowledge gaps regarding diabetes management are noted in students from other health-related fields [35], highlighting the need for enhanced education on this critical subject across disciplines. Comparing diabetes knowledge studies is challenging due to variations in study populations, participant demographics, methods, outcome measures, and the assessment tools utilised. Additionally, the limited studies available do not address knowledge domains related to disease screening.
University students are chosen from the broader community. Research on overall community knowledge of diabetes also indicates variability. Most existing studies on community diabetes knowledge have focused on individuals with T2D, revealing knowledge deficits [36]. However, amongst the limited research available on the general population’s diabetes knowledge, members of Australian communities possessed adequate knowledge of diabetes symptoms, complications, and risk factors [37,38].

4.2. The Screening Protocol

Supporting the student’s intention to screen was their understanding that the early identification of T2D provided the opportunity for timely interventions that may delay or even prevent diabetes onset. Additionally, several students believed screening participation may raise awareness of diabetes amongst dental patients. Disease screening has been shown to increase an individual’s understanding of the condition being screened for, its risk factors, symptoms, and management strategies [37]. The students also believed the AUSDRISK tool was an effective, non-invasive, and cost-efficient screening method.
However, the students described several barriers associated with implementing the protocol. Misconceptions regarding disease screening were common among the students, posing obstacles to future adoption. Some students incorrectly assumed that the AUSDRISK was a single diagnostic test, believed that it should only be offered to symptomatic individuals, and confused disease screening with early diagnosis. The AUSDRISK is not a diagnostic test; it is a risk assessment tool that classifies asymptomatic individuals based on their potential diabetes risk [5]. Several students also misunderstood the selection criteria for screening and the decision to refer for medical follow-up, believing it to be based on an objective judgement of the clinician, when, in fact, it is determined by evidence-based criteria and guidelines [39]. These misunderstandings about the protocol may arise from the inconsistent terminology and descriptions used in the literature regarding disease screening, leading to “terminological confusion” [40].
Another barrier students noted was that primary health care funding and payment models in Australia do not support dentists’ screening for diabetes. The absence of financial incentives has been reported to be a significant barrier to screening in primary care, restricting HCPs from performing additional tasks and working to their full scope of practice [41]. Furthermore, some students were somewhat anxious that incorporating medical screening would disrupt workflows, as dentists usually follow a predictable order for their routine clinical consultations, with tasks completed within a limited time frame [42]. Clinical communication models commonly taught in dental schools also use a series of predefined chronological steps for the consultation [43], which may be interrupted by the inclusion of diabetes screening.
Some students also believed that low participation in medical follow-up by patients reported in previous studies [44] limits the effectiveness of the screening protocol. Screening protocol completion is dependent on the patient’s compliance with recommended screening follow-up procedures. They noted that good clinical communication skills are essential when encouraging the patient to attend medical follow-up.

4.3. Scope of Practice

Many students in this study perceived diabetes screening to be part of their professional scope, defined by the activities they are educated for, and accountable to perform [45]. They wanted to deliver holistic care, acknowledging the strong connection between systemic and oral health. Despite several of the current competencies expected of a dentist upon graduation in Australia being related to disease screening [46], some students believed they would require additional education to allow them to adopt routine diabetes screening. Previous studies report that dental students are supportive of the inclusion of additional information when systemic health topics relate directly to dental contexts [47] and do not replace oral health content [48].
However, several study participants expressed concern that incorporating diabetes screening into dental practice falls outside a dentist’s responsibilities. They believed diabetes screening may distract the clinician from their core obligation, managing their patients’ oral health. This attitude represents a barrier to these students adopting diabetes screening when they graduate.

4.4. Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration

Screening for diabetes in dental settings necessitates collaboration between dentists and general practitioners (GPs), as dentists must refer high-risk patients for confirmatory tests. Many students conceded that this step is a potential barrier to screening implementation, as dentistry and medicine remain divided within the healthcare system, resulting in separate professional education, training, reimbursement structures, and health records [49]. Exacerbating this divide is the current deficiencies in communication and collaboration between dentists and GPs, which hinder efforts to provide integrated and effective patient care [50]. Several students did acknowledge that screening for diabetes was an opportunity to promote interprofessional communication and collaboration and overcome the historical division.
The positive views expressed to diabetes screening by the dental students in this study are similar to those stated by dental patients [13], dentists [12], and medical professionals [51]. Still, consistent with previous studies, students mentioned several barriers and facilitators to diabetes screening aligned with those reported amongst qualified OHPs. These included resources, remuneration, time, social influences, and beliefs about whether patients’ behaviour will change [15]. Our results have important implications for dental education and practice. First, the high level of interest in diabetes screening among students suggests a need to integrate training on systemic health issues to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct effective screenings. Dental curricula should address students’ misconceptions about the purpose of disease screening, the criteria for screening eligibility, and the steps in the screening process.
Secondly, a diabetes screening protocol can only be effective with interprofessional co-operation. Therefore, it is essential that dental education promotes and emphasises interprofessional communication and collaboration. Interprofessional education (IPE) for healthcare students can create a learning environment that highlights collaborative practice, integrated patient care, and improve health outcomes [52]. Despite this, in Australia, only half of dental schools had established an IPE program, and only 20% of these programs were mandatory for students [53].
Additionally, addressing legal concerns through clear guidelines and support for dental practitioners during dental education could alleviate some of the apprehensions expressed by students. Finally, raising patient awareness about the role of dental professionals in diabetes screening may enhance acceptance and encourage patients to engage in preventive health measures. Community outreach programs and informational campaigns could serve to educate patients on the significance of regular screenings and the connection between oral health and systemic conditions.
This study has identified factors that influence first-year dental students’ intention to screen for diabetes upon graduation. Healthcare behaviours are influenced by more than knowledge, and the literature on screening behaviour highlights determinants such as remuneration, time, referral pathways, and scope of practice as barriers to implementation of programs. Recognising and understanding the factors that influence HCPs’ screening behaviours is the first step in developing behaviour change interventions to encourage routine diabetes screening. A multi-factorial approach is needed to overcome these barriers, such as offering government-funded remuneration to OHPs, creating decision aids to support screening, and establishing guidelines to expand their scope of practice. The design and delivery of these interventions must be guided and informed by theory. An example of a theoretical framework that could be applied to develop future interventions is the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Extensively used in the healthcare setting, the BCW is a framework used to assist in understanding the determinants of specific behaviour and to identify appropriate intervention strategies and techniques [54].
While the study offers valuable insights into first-year dental students’ opinions on diabetes screening and their intentions to implement it post-graduation, it is not without limitations. The cross-sectional design limits conclusions about changes in their interest due to exposures to dental education and to professional socialisation. Additionally, as participants were from a single dental school, findings may not fully represent dental students from other institutions. Participation in the study was voluntary and not based on random sampling, which may have resulted in self-selection bias. Self-selection bias may generate a sample that does not accurately represent the population being studied, impacting the study results and reducing the generalisability of our findings [55]. Another potential limitation to this study is phenomenon of social desirability bias in graded student coursework. Social desirability bias is the inclination for individuals to underreport what they perceive as socially undesirable opinions and to exaggerate more desirable attitudes [56]. The students may have inflated their support for diabetes screening while underplaying their opposition to screening. Despite these limitations, we believe that the current approach was adequate given the exploratory nature of the study.

5. Conclusions

As the trajectory of the “silent epidemic” of T2D continues to rise, there is an urgent need to implement screening initiatives to increase the early identification of people with PD and T2D. The findings from this study confirm the support amongst first year dental students in incorporating diabetes screening into their future practices, reflecting an evolving understanding of the role of dental professionals in holistic patient care. However, this study identified student knowledge gaps and screening misconceptions that underscore a need for changes within dental education and practice to support this initiative. Additionally, at the health policy level, barriers such as lack of payment for screening, perceived limitations in scope of practice, and the absence of formal referral pathways between oral health and medical professionals need to be addressed. As representatives of the future of the dental workforce, these findings suggest that the dental curriculum should equip future dentists with the necessary knowledge and skills to participate in a multidisciplinary team to help prevent diabetes in at-risk individuals and collaboratively manage people living with diabetes. Addressing these challenges will enable the dental profession to play a role in the early detection and management of diabetes, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes and public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P., P.L., R.M. and I.D.; methodology, A.P., P.L., R.M. and I.D.; formal analysis, A.P., P.L., R.M. and I.D.; investigation, A.P.; data curation, A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.; writing—review and editing; supervision, P.L., R.M. and I.D.; project administration, A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Melbourne (Ethical approval no: 28246) on 29 January 2025. All students signed a written informed consent for participation in the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the lead researcher/first author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
OHPOral health professional
HCPHealthcare professional
T2DType 2 diabetes
PDPrediabetes
GPMedical professional
IPEInterprofessional education
AUSDRISKAustralian Type 2 diabetes Risk Assessment

References

  1. World Health Organisation (WHO). Global Health Estimates. The Top 10 Causes of Death. 2024. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death (accessed on 2 January 2025).
  2. Zhou, B.; Rayner, A.W.; Gregg, E.W.; Sheffer, K.E.; Carrillo-Larco, R.M.; Bennett, J.E.; Shaw, J.E.; Paciorek, C.J.; Singleton, R.K.; Barradas Pires, A.; et al. Worldwide trends in diabetes prevalence and treatment from 1990 to 2022: A pooled analysis of 1108 population-representative studies with 141 million participants. Lancet 2024, 404, 2077–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rooney, M.R.; Fang, M.; Ogurtsova, K.; Ozkan, B.; Echouffo-Tcheugui, J.B.; Boyko, E.J.; Magliano, D.J.; Selvin, E. Global Prevalence of Prediabetes. Diabetes Care 2023, 46, 1388–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lindström, J.; Peltonen, M.; Eriksson, J.G.; Ilanne-Parikka, P.; Aunola, S.; Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi, S.; Uusitupa, M.; Tuomilehto, J. Improved lifestyle and decreased diabetes risk over 13 years: Long-term follow-up of the randomised Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS). Diabetologia 2013, 56, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fleming, K.; Weaver, N.; Peel, R.; Hure, A.; McEvoy, M.; Holliday, E.; Parsons, M.; Acharya, S.; Luu, J.; Wiggers, J.; et al. Using the AUSDRISK score to screen for prediabetes and diabetes in GP practices: A case finding approach. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2022, 46, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zheng, M.; Bernardo, C.D.O.; Stocks, N.; Gonzalez-Chica, D. Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis and Screening in Australian General Practice: A National Study. J. Diabetes Res. 2022, 2022, 1566408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Păunică, I.; Giurgiu, M.; Dumitriu, A.S.; Păunică, S.; Pantea Stoian, A.M.; Martu, M.A.; Serafinceanu, C. The Bidirectional Relationship between Periodontal Disease and Diabetes Mellitus—A Review. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Diabetes 2022. Available online: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/diabetes/latest-release (accessed on 3 January 2024).
  9. Yonel, Z.; Sharma, P.; Yahyouche, A.; Jalal, Z.; Dietrich, T.; Chapple, I.L. Patients’ attendance patterns to different healthcare settings and perceptions of stakeholders regarding screening for chronic, non-communicable diseases in high street dental practices and community pharmacy: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e024503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Neidell, M.; Lamster, I.B.; Shearer, B. Cost-effectiveness of diabetes screening initiated through a dental visit. Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol. 2017, 45, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Laniado, N.; Shah, P.; Cloidt, M.; Robles, E.; Badner, V.; Sydney, E. Point-of-care glycemia testing in a safety-net dental care setting: A feasibility study. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2025, 156, 292–299.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mariño, R.; Priede, A.; King, M.; Adams, G.G.; Lopez, D. Attitudes and opinions of Oral healthcare professionals on screening for Type-2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yonel, Z.; Yahyouche, A.; Jalal, Z.; James, A.; Dietrich, T.; Chapple, I.L.C. Patient acceptability of targeted risk-based detection of non-communicable diseases in a dental and pharmacy setting. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Masiero, S.; Alberti, A.; Corbella, S.; Francetti, L. Chairside Screening for Undiagnosed Diabetes and Prediabetes in Patients with Periodontitis. Int. J. Dent. 2022, 2022, 9120115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yonel, Z.; Cerullo, E.; Kröger, A.T.; Gray, L.J. Use of dental practices for the identification of adults with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus or non-diabetic hyperglycaemia: A systematic review. Diabet. Med. 2020, 37, 1443–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tseng, E.; Greer, R.C.; O’Rourke, P.; Yeh, H.C.; McGuire, M.M.; Clark, J.M.; Maruthur, N.M. Survey of primary care providers’ knowledge of screening for, diagnosing and managing prediabetes. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2017, 32, 1172–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Greenberg, B.L.; Glick, M.; Tavares, M. Addressing obesity in the dental setting: What can be learned from oral health care professionals’ efforts to screen for medical conditions. J. Public Health Dent. 2017, 77, S67–S78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Australian Government. Department of Health, Aging and Disability. About Dentists and Dental Practitioners. 2025. Available online: https://www.health.gov.au/topics/dentists/about (accessed on 11 January 2025).
  19. Bin Rubaia’an, M.A. Dental Education: A Guide for Novice Tutors. Cureus 2023, 15, e43227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilder, R.S.; Bell, K.P.; Phillips, C.; Paquette, D.W.; Offenbacher, S. Dentists’ Practice Behaviors and Perceived Barriers Regarding Oral-Systemic Evidence: Implications for Education. J. Dent. Educ. 2014, 78, 1252–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mills, A.; Berlin-Broner, Y.; Levin, L. Improving Patient Well-Being as a Broader Perspective in Dentistry. Int. Dent. J. 2023, 73, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Al-Khabbaz, A.K.; Al-Shammari, K.F.; Al-Saleh, N.A. Knowledge about the association between periodontal diseases and diabetes mellitus: Contrasting dentists and physicians. J. Periodontol. 2011, 82, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shaheen, N.A.; Alaskar, A.; Almuflih, A.; Muhanna, N.; Barrak Alzomia, S.; Hussein, M.A. Screening Practices, Knowledge and Adherence Among Health Care Professionals at a Tertiary Care Hospital. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021, 14, 6975–6989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mainous, A.G.; Tanner, R.J.; Scuderi, C.B.; Porter, M.; Carek, P.J. Prediabetes Screening and Treatment in Diabetes Prevention: The Impact of Physician Attitudes. J. Am. Board. Fam. Med. 2016, 29, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Keck, J.W.; Thomas, A.R.; Hieronymus, L.; Roper, K.L. Prediabetes knowledge, attitudes, and practices at an academic family medicine practice. J. Am. Board. Fam. Med. 2019, 32, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shimpi, N.; Panny, A.; Glurich, I.; Chyou, P.-H.; Acharya, A. Knowledgeability, Attitude and Practice Behaviors of Dental Providers Toward Provisions of Integrated Care Delivery for Patients With Prediabetes/Diabetes: Wisconsin Statewide Survey. Front. Dent. Med. 2021, 2, 674178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Naruishi, K.; Wada-Mihara, C.; Oishi, K.; Nagata, T. Dental Students’ Awareness After Clinical Training Between Dental Treatment and Systemic Health: A Questionnaire-Based Survey. Front. Dent. Med. 2022, 2, 740441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anders, P.L.; Davis, E.L.; McCall, W., Jr. Dental students’ glucometer experience and attitudes toward diabetes counseling, monitoring, and screening: A comparative study. J. Dent. Educ. 2014, 78, 1263–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tran, H.; Ahmed, F.; Yousuf, M.; Chan, G.; Mariño, R.; Wylie, M.; Paolini, R.; Canfora, F.; McCullough, M.; Celentano, A. Sociodemographic profiles and career motivations of Australian dental students. J. Oral Sci. 2024, 66, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leggett, H.; Vinall-Collier, K.; Csikar, J.; Owen, J.; Edwebi, S.; Douglas, G. A scoping review of dental practitioners’ perspectives on perceived barriers and facilitators to preventive oral health care in general dental practice. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hamblin, P.S.; Russell, A.W.; Talic, S.; Zoungas, S. The growing range of complications of diabetes mellitus. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2025, 36, 943–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ali, D.A. Knowledge of the relationships between oral health, diabetes, body mass index and lifestyle among students at the Kuwait University Health Sciences Center, Kuwait. Med. Princ. Pract. 2016, 25, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nivashini, G.S.V.; Kumar, M.P.S. Knowledge and awareness among undergraduate dental students regarding oral health of diabetes mellitus patients. Drug Invent. Today 2018, 10, 464–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wallymahmed, M. Final-year student nurses’ knowledge and understanding of diabetes and its application to practice. J. Diabetes Nurs. 2022, 26, 236. [Google Scholar]
  36. Phoosuwan, N.; Ongarj, P.; Hjelm, K. Knowledge on diabetes and its related factors among the people with type 2 diabetes in Thailand: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Osuagwu, U.L.; Sharma, S.; Silva, D.; Saunders, J.; Pillay, J.; Piya, M.K.; Simmons, D. Assessment of diabetes knowledge, screening and uptake of community diabetes programs in a peri-urban region in Australia. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. 2021, 15, 102257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Schmid, K.L.; Schmid, L.M.; Optom, C.P.B. Knowledge of the ocular effects of diabetes among the general population of Australia and the members of Diabetes Australia. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2003, 86, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Chen, L.; Magliano, D.J.; Balkau, B.; Colagiuri, S.; Zimmet, P.Z.; Tonkin, A.M.; Mitchell, P.; Phillips, P.J.; Shaw, J.E. AUSDRISK: An Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool based on demographic, lifestyle and simple anthropometric measures. Med. J. Aust. 2010, 192, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Speechley, M.; Kunnilathu, A.; Aluckal, E.; Balakrishna, M.S.; Mathew, B.; George, E.K. Screening in Public Health and Clinical Care: Similarities and Differences in Definitions, Types, and Aims—A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2017, 11, Le01–Le04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Endalamaw, A.; Khatri, R.B.; Erku, D.; Zewdie, A.; Wolka, E.; Nigatu, F.; Assefa, Y. Barriers and strategies for primary health care workforce development: Synthesis of evidence. BMC Prim. Care 2024, 25, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Manalastas, G.; Noble, L.M.; Viney, R.; Griffin, A.E. What does the structure of a medical consultation look like? A new method for visualising doctor-patient communication. Patient Educ. Couns. 2021, 104, 1387–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moore, R. Maximizing Student Clinical Communication Skills in Dental Education—A Narrative Review. Den. J. 2022, 10, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Priede, A.; Lau, P.; Darby, I.; Morgan, M.; Mariño, R. Referral Compliance Following a Diabetes Screening in a Dental Setting: A Scoping Review. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Australia Government Department of Health. Unleashing the Potential of Our Health Workforce. Scope of Practice Review Final Report. 2024. Available online: https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/unleashing-the-potential-of-our-health-workforce-scope-of-practice-review-final-report (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  46. Australian Dental Council. Professional Competencies of the Newly Qualified Dentist; ADC: Melbourne, Australia, 2023; Available online: https://www.adc.org.au/files/accreditation/competencies/ADC_Professional_Competencies_of_the_Newly_Qualified_Dental_Practitioner.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  47. Kristensen, B.T.; Netterstrom, I.; Kayser, L. Dental students’ motivation and the context of learning. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2009, 13, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Komerik, N.; Sari, H.; Koray, M.; Hocaoglu, T.; Bas, B. Medical courses need to be tailored for dental students. J. Contemp. Med. Educ. 2014, 2, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gupta, T.; Stuart, J. Medicine and dentistry: Shall ever the twain meet? Aust. J. Gen. Pract. 2020, 49, 544–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Biethman, R.K.; Pandarakalam, C.; Garcia, M.N.; Whitener, S.; Hildebolt, C.F. Screening for Diabetes in a Dental School Clinic to Assess Interprofessional Communication Between Physicians and Dental Students. J. Dent. Educ. 2017, 81, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Greenberg, B.L.; Thomas, P.A.; Glick, M.; Kantor, M.L. Physicians’ attitudes toward medical screening in a dental setting. J. Public Health Dent. 2015, 75, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. World Health Organization. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; Available online: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/70185 (accessed on 28 November 2024).
  53. Khalili, H.; Park, V.; Daulton, B.; Langlois, S.; Wetzlmair, L.; MacMillan, K.M.; El-Awaisi, A.; Green, C.; Ballard, J.; Pandey, J. Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (IPECP) in Post-COVID Healthcare Education and Practice Transformation Era–Discussion Paper; Joint Publication by InterprofessionalResearch; Global, American Interprofessional Health Collaborative & Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative: Redlands, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  54. Michie, S.; van Stralen, M.M.; West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 2011, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hiratsuka, T. The volunteer participation paradox: Ethical tensions between self-selection and targeted sampling. Res. Methods Appl. Linguist. 2025, 4, 100206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bergen, N.; Labonté, R. “Everything Is Perfect, and We Have No Problems”: Detecting and Limiting Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research. Qual. Health Res. 2020, 30, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Thematic content of dental students’ essays on diabetes screening.
Table 1. Thematic content of dental students’ essays on diabetes screening.
Themes and Sub-ThemesScreening Barrier
or Facilitator
Diabetes knowledge
Diabetes is a very common and serious conditionFacilitator
There is an association between oral health and diabetesFacilitator
The screening protocol
Individuals and the community benefit from diabetes screeningFacilitator
AUSDRISK is an appropriate tool to screen for diabetesFacilitator
Additional time and resources are required for screeningBarrier
No remuneration for screeningBarrier
Diabetes screening may disrupt workflowBarrier
Misunderstanding disease screening and the screening stepsBarrier
Referral compliance is a barrier to diabetes screeningBarrier
Scope of practice
Diabetes screening is the role and responsibility of a dentistFacilitator
Diabetes screening is not the role and responsibility of a dentistBarrier
Lack of education and training on diabetes and screening protocolBarrier
Screening raises awareness of diabetes and oral healthFacilitator
Optimal patient care requires managing oral and systemic healthFacilitator
Interprofessional communication and collaboration
Screening requires co-operation between OHP and GPBarrier
Dentists work in a divided healthcare systemBarrier
Diabetes screening promotes interprofessional collaborationFacilitator
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Priede, A.; Mariño, R.; Darby, I.; Lau, P. A Qualitative Analysis of First-Year Dental Students’ Opinions on Diabetes Screening in the Dental Setting. Diabetology 2025, 6, 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6110134

AMA Style

Priede A, Mariño R, Darby I, Lau P. A Qualitative Analysis of First-Year Dental Students’ Opinions on Diabetes Screening in the Dental Setting. Diabetology. 2025; 6(11):134. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6110134

Chicago/Turabian Style

Priede, André, Rodrigo Mariño, Ivan Darby, and Phyllis Lau. 2025. "A Qualitative Analysis of First-Year Dental Students’ Opinions on Diabetes Screening in the Dental Setting" Diabetology 6, no. 11: 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6110134

APA Style

Priede, A., Mariño, R., Darby, I., & Lau, P. (2025). A Qualitative Analysis of First-Year Dental Students’ Opinions on Diabetes Screening in the Dental Setting. Diabetology, 6(11), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/diabetology6110134

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop