Cost as a barrier to accessing dental care: findings from a <scp>C</scp>anadian population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Canadians who report cost barriers to dental care. METHODS: An analysis of data collected from the 2007/09 Canadian Health Measures Survey was undertaken from a sample of 5,586 Canadian participants aged 6-79. Cost barriers to dental care were operationalized through two questions: "In the past 12 months, have you avoided going to a dental professional because of the cost of dental care?" and "In the past 12 months, have you avoided having all the dental treatment that was recommended because of the cost?" Logistic regressions were conducted to identify relationships between covariates and positive responses to these questions. RESULTS: Approximately 17.3 percent of respondents had avoided a dental professional because of cost within the previous year, and 16.5 percent had declined recommended dental treatment because of cost. Adjusted estimates demonstrate that respondents with lower incomes and without dental insurance were over four times more likely to avoid a dental professional because of cost and approximately two and a half times more likely to decline recommended dental treatment because of cost. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one out of five Canadians surveyed reported cost barriers to dental care. This study provides valuable baseline information for future studies to assess whether financial barriers to dental care are getting better or worse for Canadians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".