Emergency room visits for dental problems among working poor <scp>C</scp>anadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the risk of visiting hospital emergency rooms (ERs) for dental problems not associated with trauma among a sample of working poor Canadians. METHODS: Data stem from a telephone survey administered between March and August 2007 of working poor Canadians aged 18-64 years. Logistic regressions were employed to determine the predictors of reporting a visit to an ER for dental problems not associated with trauma. RESULTS: Approximately 6.1 percent of the sample reported visiting an ER in the past for a dental problem not associated with trauma. Those who were publicly insured, reported poor oral health, experienced a bed day due to dental pain, had dependent children, were lone parents, had competing needs, a history of receiving welfare, a history of an inability to afford dental care, and a perceived need for dental treatment were all more likely to have reported an ER visit. When adjusting for all variables, having experienced a bed day due to dental pain and a history of an inability to afford dental care were the dominant predictors of this outcome. A higher but not significantly different prevalence of ER visits for dental problems was found among the working poor sample when compared with the general Canadian population (6.1 percent versus 5.4 percent, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed in order to provide insight into the reasons why the working poor population is seeking dental care in hospital settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".