Caregiver perspectives in oral healthcare in an institutionalised elderly population without access to dental services: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The provision of dental services to elderly populations is a complicated area. When clients are cognitively impaired, a new set of variables are introduced as care can be influenced by designated family members, caregivers or administrators, who are responsible for the oral health care of the client and may influence the types of treatment the client will receive. Differences in attitudes and perceptions, with respect to oral health, may lead to better or worse access to care. The goals of this study are: (a) to gain a better understanding of the perceptions which may govern access and barriers to care within the institutionalised elderly population; and (b) to improve information on where and how to target educational and service resources, in order to reduce barriers to care. METHOD: A convenience (non-randomised) sample of 100 residents with caregivers was selected from nursing homes without organised access to oral healthcare services. A structured interview was conducted with 40 family members. Questions explored the importance and priorities of dental services for elderly people in institutions. RESULTS: Services which family members deemed of highest importance were dentures (both to replace teeth and adjustments on existing dentures), pain relief, emergency dentistry, fillings, cleanings, check-ups, tooth removal and treatment for advanced gum disease. Services that family members felt were less important were complex restorations, cleaning instruction to caregivers and seniors, and services by a specialist. Services considered to be of least importance were root canal treatment and implants. The top service priorities identified by the sample of family members included: cleanings to prevent mouth disease; check-ups including X-rays; fillings; dentures to replace teeth; and dental treatment to relieve pain. CONCLUSION: This study found that family members and caregivers would like a basic dental service including check-ups and preventive care, with restorative, denture and surgical intervention when required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".