Continuing dental care for Highlands elderly: Current practice and attitudes of dental practitioners and home supervisors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate current practice and attitudes of Highland dentists and home supervisors to continued dental care of elderly residents. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire was designed to survey the current practice and attitudes of Highland dentists and residential care supervisors in their provision of dental care for the elderly at home and in long stay accommodation. RESULTS: The response rate was 94% of dentists and 79% of homes. Despite 86% of dentists providing domiciliary care and 93% of homes transport to a surgery, no more than a quarter of residents had had contact with a dentist in the previous year. The distribution of residents varied with dependant individuals living in nursing units and the least dependant in residential homes. Only 1% of all residents were totally bed bound. Domiciliary patients were less likely to receive continuing care compared with those seen in a surgery and 75% of homes had to initiate dental care. In terms of patient referral, the majority of GDPs would refer uncooperative patients, salaried dentists would refer those with complex medical histories and community dentists would refer those requiring complex treatments. A dental assessment was undertaken in 46% of homes and 81% of these kept a record of dental care. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need for a co-ordinated, seamless continuing dental care service, tailored to the actual needs of the elderly individuals it is designed to serve, particularly in a remote and rural area.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it