Access to Dental Services for People Using a Wheelchair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the perspectives of people using a wheelchair and their difficulties in accessing dental services. METHODS: Our participatory research was on the basis of a partnership between people using a wheelchair, dental professionals, and academic researchers. Partners were involved in a committee that provided advice at all stages of the project. Our team adopted a qualitative descriptive design. Between October 2011 and October 2012 we conducted semistructured individual interviews with 13 adults who lived in Montreal, Québec, Canada, and used a wheelchair full time. We audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim interviews, and we interpreted data using an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Oral health is of heightened importance to this group of people, who tend to use their mouth as a "third hand." We identified successive challenges in accessing dental services: finding a dentist and being accepted, organizing transportation, entering the building and circulating inside, interacting with the dental staff, transferring and overcoming discomfort on the dental chair, and paying for the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Governments, dental professional bodies, dental schools, and researchers should work with groups representing wheelchair users to improve access to dental services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".