Oral self‐care among adults with diabetes in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The importance of maintenance and promotion of periodontal health is emphasized among people with diabetes because of their high risk for periodontal diseases. Our aim was to evaluate oral health behavior and its determinants among adults with diabetes in Finland. METHODS: The population of the questionnaire study consisted of 420 systematically selected adults with diabetes, who were members of a national diabetes register. The response rate was 80%. Questions focused on self-treatment, -prevention, and -diagnosis of oral diseases, utilization of dental services, and knowledge and attitudes toward oral health among adult people with diabetes. Oral self-care was evaluated in the framework of the New Century model of oral health promotion. RESULTS: The proportion of edentulous subjects was 23%, and these were excluded from further analysis. Self-reported twice-a-day brushing among dentate participants was significantly more common among women and the highly educated, but was less common compared with earlier studies among Finnish adults. A quarter of those surveyed reported never cleaning interdental surfaces, with the number of daily cleaners being nearly equal (27%). Age 40 years or over and recent treatment by a private dentist were significant predictors for daily interdental cleaning. The proportion of those who had attended a dental appointment within the last year was 63%, and the main reason for the last dental visit was an emergency among almost one-fifth of those surveyed. CONCLUSIONS: A need exists for further promotion of oral self-care among adults with diabetes. Support by dental and other health care professionals involved in diabetes care should be encouraged.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".