Oral health care in Canada--a view from the trenches.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Concern is increasing over the effect of lack of access to oral health care on the oral health, and hence general health, of disadvantaged groups. In preparation for a national symposium on this issue, key informants across Canada were canvassed for their perceptions of oral health services and their recommendations for improving oral health care delivery. This paper reports the results of that survey. METHOD: A questionnaire was constructed to address problems facing agencies with responsibility for meeting the oral health care needs of people receiving government assistance, the underhoused and the working poor. The survey was sent to 200 agencies, government and professional organizations. Data from the returned questionnaires were entered into a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences database and analyzed. Responses from Ontario were compared with those from the rest of Canada, those from government organizations were compared with others and results were examined by cultural nature of clients and by type of organization. RESULTS: In assessing the positive aspects of oral health care, 84% of respondents agreed that public programs were useful and 81% felt that dentists offer good care. However, 77% disagreed that preventive care is accessible and that access to dentists and dental specialists is easy. More Ontarians than others thought that there are few alternative settings for care delivery (95% vs. 83%) and that the poor feel unwelcome in dental offices (83% vs. 70%). The issues most commonly identified were the need for alternative delivery sites, such as community health centres where service delivery could be affordable, accountable and sustainable; the need for oral health to be recognized as part of general health; regulatory issues (e.g., expanding practice opportunities for non-dentist oral health care providers and removing restrictions on other dental health professionals in providing basic care to the financially challenged); and training. DISCUSSION: The survey helped to identify access and care issues across the country. There was considerable agreement that lack of access to dental care services is an important detriment to the oral and general health of many Canadians. Respondents believe that dental health is isolated from general health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».