A concept analysis of oral hygiene care in dependent older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To report a concept analysis of oral hygiene care. BACKGROUND: Oral hygiene care, as it is provided to older patients in hospital and long-term care settings by nurses and their delegates, has the potential to contribute to the oral health of patients while preventing aspiration pneumonia as well as periodontitis, which itself has been associated with several systemic diseases. However, the state of oral cleanliness in such patients tends to be poor and despite the existence of guidelines, nursing care practices may be inadequate and not reflective of recent advances in knowledge. DESIGN: Concept analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search of electronic databases (2002-2012), use of internet search engines, and hand searching yielded an international data set of 66 research studies, reviews, and practice guidelines. REVIEW METHODS: The concept analysis method of Walker and Avant was used to explore the concept of oral hygiene care in the context of frail older patients. RESULTS: Oral hygiene care involves approaches informed by knowing the patient, inspecting the oral cavity, removing plaque, cleansing the oral tissues, decontaminating the oral cavity, using fluoride products and maintaining oral tissue moisture. Those attributes, along with their antecedents and consequences, form a conceptual framework from which a middle-range theory of nurse-administered oral hygiene care is derived that could be tested, evaluated, modified, and translated into practice. CONCLUSIONS: Clarity around the concept of oral hygiene care as a nursing intervention could enable nurses to impact oral health outcomes and possibly prevent systemic diseases in older patients.
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 | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".