The self-reported oral health status and behaviors of adults who are deaf and blind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored perceived oral health, felt need, oral health knowledge and behaviors, and utilization of dental services among a community of deaf and blind adults in Toronto, Canada. Seven adults participated in in depth interviews facilitated by intervenors skilled in communication with people who are deaf and blind. Subjects reported that their oral health was good, however oral health knowledge was poor and daily oral hygiene practices were minimal. Few subjects had ever received dental health education and were largely unaware of how to prevent dental disease. A subsidized dental program enabled subjects to have regular dental visits, though they were concerned about the costs of more complex dental treatment not covered by the program. They also worried about finding an alternative source of care once their eligibility for the program ceased at the age of 65. The presence of the subsidized sympathetic dental program and the facilitative role of intervenors promoted utilization of dental care for many of the subjects who participated in this study. There is a clear need to develop appropriate dental health education programs for this group of people, which would harness the support of the community of deaf and blind people and their intervenors. The interventions need to be sensitive and appropriate for the individual's level of impairment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".