Perceptions of caregivers regarding the importance of dental care for institutionalised seniors: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The type of dental treatment that institutionalised elderly receive often depends on the decisions made by various stakeholders. These decisions may be based on a perceived need for treatment. This study was designed to investigate the perception of primary caregivers as to the relative importance of dental care for institutionalised seniors. Seniors who lived in a long-term care institution, with a dental facility available to them on a daily basis, volunteered information regarding their primary caregivers. A total of 25 primary caregivers participated in a structured telephone interview. All (100%) of the caregivers considered emergency dental services and treatment to relieve pain as essential/important services which should be available to institutionalised seniors. The following were most commonly ranked in the top three by the primary caregivers: emergency dental services (57%); dental services to relieve pain (48%); cleanings to prevent mouth disease (45%); check-ups including X-rays (45%); dentures to replace missing teeth (33%); and fillings (24%). The findings of this study suggest that more effort should be directed at investigating the perceived need of value of dental services for institutionalised seniors within the various stakeholders.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".