Data and code from: Variation in HPV-related communication practices between dentists and dental hygienists in California
Data files
Nov 02, 2026 version files 199.50 KB
-
Copy_of_HPVLAdentistsforupload-1.xlsx
147.08 KB
-
README.md
29.96 KB
-
SAS_CODING.docx
22.46 KB
Abstract
This dataset contains respondent-level survey data on human papillomavirus (HPV)–related communication practices among dentists in Los Angeles County and dental hygienists recruited through the California Dental Hygienists’ Association. Data were collected between August and November 2023 using mailed and online questionnaires.
The Excel workbook includes a participant-level data worksheet, with one respondent per row and survey variables in columns, and a DataMap worksheet containing questionnaire descriptions and response codes. Variables cover professional role, gender, graduation year, race/ethnicity, practice characteristics, patient populations served, HPV-related communication, and attitudes and perceived barriers concerning HPV vaccine counseling. Responses include numeric categorical codes, binary indicators, five-point Likert-scale ratings, and derived variables. Communication measures include whether respondents or other dental team members discussed the connection between HPV and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with patients during the preceding 12 months.
The dataset supports secondary analyses of professional differences in reported communication practices, perceived counseling barriers, and associations between respondent or practice characteristics and HPV-related communication. Interpretation should account for the cross-sectional, self-reported data and the different sampling frames used for the two professional groups. Direct participant identifiers are excluded. The study was determined to be exempt by the UCLA Office of the Human Research Protection Program (IRB#23-000751).
Dataset overview
Respondent-level cross-sectional survey data on human papillomavirus (HPV) communication, vaccination-related attitudes, and professional/practice characteristics. Collection occurred August–November 2023. Dentists were recruited from a random sample of 2,000 actively licensed Los Angeles County dentists. Dental hygienists were recruited through an invitation to 1,881 actively licensed California Dental Hygienists’ Association members. The sampling frames differ and do not establish statewide representativeness for either group.
File inventory and organization
Copy_of_HPVLAdentistsforupload-1.xlsx: Excel workbook containing two visible worksheets.sheet1: participant data; one record per row, first row contains variable names. The supplied version contains 711 nonempty records (261dds, 450dh) and 49 columns. No explicit participant-ID column is included.DataMap: original questionnaire/export dictionary (250 rows, three columns). Column A contains question identifiers, wording and response-type notes; columns B–C contain codes and labels. Some dictionary entries describe variables not supplied insheet1. This worksheet is metadata, not additional participant observations.
- This README: describes the workbook, variables, interpretation and interpretation notes.
Question-based names use q plus a question number; r identifies a response option or matrix item; _oth indicates an original “Other” field. Not all numbered questions/options are included. The workbook filename refers to LA dentists, but the data also include hygienists recruited statewide.
Software
File: SAS_CODING.docx
Description: SAS version 9.4 source code used for data preparation.
Open .xlsx with Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, or an Excel-compatible reader. For analysis, import sheet1 with row 1 as headers. No macros or analysis scripts are provided. The manuscript reports SAS version 9.4; SAS is not required to read the workbook. Preserve blank cells as missing and keep text categories distinct until harmonization is documented.
General coding and missing values
Codes are categorical unless a numeric quantity is explicitly stated. Codes have no physical units. Binary response-option indicators use 0 = unchecked and 1 = checked; 0 is an observed response, not a missing-value code. Blank cells are missing/unspecified; the workbook does not distinguish item nonresponse, skipped questions, or unavailable data. Do not interpret blanks as No or zero. “Don't know” is a substantive response where specified. Detailed reasons for missingness are not recorded in the supplied workbook.
The dictionary below reports the supplied DataMap coding. In particular, its Likert direction conflicts with the manuscript; actual coding must be confirmed before constructing scores.
Complete dictionary for sheet1
Observed values and missing counts describe this supplied version only; observed ranges are not eligibility criteria.
| Variable | Description | Coding / units | Observed values | Blank cells |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ddsordh | Professional group | dds = dentist; dh = dental hygienist | dds, dh | 0 |
| gender | What is your gender? | 1 = Female; 2 = Male; DataMap also defines 3 = Other (not observed) | 1, 2 | 4 |
| q1_oth | What is your gender? - Other: | Open text; all supplied cells are blank | 711 | |
| q2 | Year of graduation from pre-doctoral dental program (DMD or DDS): | Calendar year; DataMap wording refers to dental degree; manuscript describes professional-program graduation for both groups. The original hygienist-specific question wording is not separately provided. | 62 distinct values; numeric range 1936–2023 | 33 |
| newyeargrad | Derived years since graduation | Years; values are consistent with 2023 minus q2; the original derivation syntax is not included | 62 distinct values; numeric range 0–87 | 33 |
| q3r1 | White | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q3r2 | Hispanic or Latino | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q3r3 | Black, or African American | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q3r4 | Asian | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| race | Derived race/ethnicity grouping | Text labels; derivation/multiple-selection priority not supplied. Asian and asian occur separately and appear to differ only in case; retain original labels when importing. | Asian, asian, hispanic, other, white | 0 |
| q3r5 | American Indian or Alaskan native | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q3r6 | Middle Eastern or North African | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q3r7 | Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q3_oth | What is your race/ethnicity? - Other: | Stored as 0/1, although DataMap defines this name as open text. The workbook does not establish the exact meaning of these binary values; do not treat this column as a verified Other-selection indicator. | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q4 | Which of the following best describes your current primary practice location? | 1 = Urban; 2 = Suburban; 3 = Rural | 1, 2, 3 | 16 |
| q5 | Is your primary practice located in a designated health professional shortage area? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No; 3 = Don't know | 1, 2, 3 | 455 |
| q9r1 | In-solo private practice | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q9r2 | In private practice, 2-4 dentists total | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q9r3 | In private practice, 5 or more dentists total | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q9r4 | Managed care or preferred provider organization | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q9r5 | Dental school, academic dental institution or facility staffed by the dental school | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q9r6 | Corporate dentistry | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q9r7 | Federally qualified health centers or community dental practice | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q10 | How many hours do you work per week in the primary practice location? | 1 = Less than 20 hours; 2 = 20 hours to 30 hours; 3 = Greater than 30 hours | 1, 2, 3 | 10 |
| q11r1 | My patients are primarily adults (ages 18 and over) | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q11r2 | My patients are primarily children and adolescents (up-to age 17) | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q11r3 | My patients include children, adolescents and adults (all ages) | 0 = unchecked; 1 = checked | 0, 1 | 0 |
| q12 | Are dentists in California authorized to provide Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccinations? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No; 3 = Don't know | 1, 2, 3 | 4 |
| q13 | Are dental hygienists in California authorized to provide HPV vaccinations? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No; 3 = Don't know | 1, 2, 3 | 5 |
| q14 | Have you or other dental team members received training to administer HPV vaccinations? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No | 1, 2 | 7 |
| q15 | During the past 12 months, have you or other dental team members administered HPV vaccinations in your dental office? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No | 1, 2 | 7 |
| q16 | During the past 12 months, have you or other dental team members discussed with patients the link between HPV and oro-phayrngeal cancers in your dental office? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No | 1, 2 | 8 |
| q17 | During the past 12 months, have you or other dental team members recommended HPV vaccinations to patients in your dental office? | 1 = Yes; 2 = No | 1, 2 | 8 |
| q18r1 | I don't feel comfortable recommending the HPV vaccine to patients (or their parents) | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 9 |
| q18r2 | I worry that I may lose patients if I recommend HPV vaccinations | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 10 |
| q18r3 | There is inadequate time to discuss HPV vaccines with patients (or their parents) during dental appointments | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 13 |
| q18r4 | I do not have sufficient information about the HPV vaccine | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 11 |
| q18r6 | There are no established professional policies/guidelines that would help me counsel patients/parents about HPV vaccine | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 8 |
| q18r7 | Dentists are not the appropriate health care professional to educate, counsel or advise on HPV related issues | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 10 |
| q20r1 | My practice can (or could if necessary) efficiently integrate vaccine delivery into dental office workflow | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 28 |
| q20r2 | I knew more about the process for becoming certified to deliver vaccines | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 31 |
| q20r3 | A sufficient number of my patients expressed interest in receiving the vaccine | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 32 |
| q20r4 | If my team or I had sufficient time to discuss vaccine safety and effectiveness with patients | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 29 |
| q20r5 | Appropriate training and continuing education were easily accessible | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 29 |
| q20r6 | Documentation and electronic reporting requirements were simple and required minimal administrative time | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 29 |
| q20r7 | Scope of practice regulations in my state enabled dental hygienists or dental assistants to provide vaccinations with dentist supervision | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 31 |
| q20r8 | My practice could access vaccine supplies with minimal requirements for in-office storage and refrigeration | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 33 |
| q20r9 | Patients in my community had limited access to vaccines | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 32 |
| q20r10 | Adequate reimbursement was provided for vaccine delivery | DataMap: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. See the scale-direction note below. | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 31 |
Derived measures and manuscript analysis
The manuscript's primary outcome corresponds to q16: whether the respondent or another dental team member discussed the HPV–oropharyngeal cancer connection with patients during the previous 12 months. It is an office/team-level report and does not isolate the respondent’s own behavior. The source coding is 1 = Yes, 2 = No; any binary recoding for regression must be documented.
The manuscript describes a five-item communication score using the statements represented by q18r1, q18r2, q18r3, q18r4, and q18r6. It specifies a 5–25 range, with higher scores indicating fewer perceived barriers/more favorable attitudes. No score column is included. The manuscript uses 5 = Strongly disagree and 1 = Strongly agree, opposite to DataMap. If the source values follow DataMap, reversing each item as 6 - response before summing would produce the manuscript’s stated direction; this is a conditional explanation, not confirmation of the actual analysis. The handling of missing items, recoding syntax and score validation were not supplied. Do not reconstruct the score until coding is verified.
q18r7 and all ten q20 items are additional supplied measures; they are not part of the five-item score described above. For the manuscript's three-category presentation, agreement, neutrality and disagreement were grouped; verify numerical direction first. The manuscript also groups weekly hours into <20 and ≥20; source categories are retained here. No analysis code, model-specific inclusion flags or survey weights are included.
DataMap-only entries
The DataMap additionally documents ID, status, method, csrsid, q6–q8, q3r8, q9r8, q9_oth, q18r5, q19 and its coded fields, q21 and its coded fields, and accesscode/city/state/zip/county. These names do not occur as columns in the supplied participant worksheet. Their appearance in metadata does not mean their participant values have been shared. q1 is represented by gender; derived ddsordh, newyeargrad, and race are not fully defined by the original DataMap.
Ethics and privacy
The manuscript reports that UCLA’s Office of the Human Research Protection Program determined the study exempt (IRB#23-000751). Participation was voluntary; paper packets included consent information/forms, and online participation required electronic consent. The supplied participant worksheet excludes names, email addresses, mailing addresses, license numbers and explicit participant identifiers. Exact graduation years and detailed demographic/practice characteristics remain. The manuscript and workbook do not document the assessment of indirect identification risk or provide the original consent/confidentiality wording. Exclusion of direct identifiers alone does not establish absence of identification risk.
Reuse and interpretation
These data may support analyses of reported HPV communication, professional-group differences and perceived barriers. Cross-sectional associations cannot establish causation. Self-report, recall/social-desirability bias, nonresponse, and differing recruitment frames limit interpretation and generalizability. Questions about legal authorization to vaccinate record respondents’ beliefs in 2023; they are not current legal guidance. Missing data may change analytic sample sizes.
Associated manuscript: “Variation in HPV-related communication practices between dentists and dental hygienists in California.” Article and dataset DOI links are not specified in this README. No third-party participant dataset is identified as a source; survey items were adapted from a National Dental Practice-Based Research Network questionnaire, as cited in the associated manuscript. Repository licensing is specified in the Dryad record; this README does not impose additional reuse restrictions.
Differences between the deposited workbook and manuscript
The workbook contains 711 records (261 dentists and 450 hygienists); the associated manuscript reports an analytic sample of 709 (261 dentists and 448 hygienists). The workbook does not identify which two hygienist records were excluded or why. All supplied records are documented here; no rows have been removed by assumption. Analytic replication therefore requires clarification of the manuscript inclusion rules.
The original DataMap defines 5 = Strongly agree and 1 = Strongly disagree. The manuscript describes the communication score using the reverse direction. This README preserves the DataMap definitions and reports the manuscript's score definition separately rather than assuming the participant responses were already reversed. The original analysis syntax is not included, so exact replication of the published score cannot be guaranteed from these files alone.
Abbreviations
HPV: human papillomavirus. OPSCC: oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. DDS/DMD: dental degree designations. DH: dental hygienist. CDHA: California Dental Hygienists’ Association. IRB: institutional review board. Medicaid: US public health coverage program. A health professional shortage area is a designated area/population/facility with shortages of health professionals. Likert responses are ordered agreement categories, not measurements with physical units.
Human subjects data
This dataset contains human-subject survey data collected from dentists and dental hygienists regarding HPV-related communication practices in California. The study was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review by the University of California, Los Angeles, Office of the Human Research Protection Program (IRB#23-000751). Participation was voluntary. Paper survey packets included a consent form, and online respondents provided electronic consent before accessing the questionnaire.
The participant-level data provided for sharing do not include names, email addresses, mailing addresses, dental license numbers, or explicit participant identifiers. The dataset contains coded survey responses and demographic and professional characteristics, including gender, race/ethnicity, graduation year, and practice characteristics.