Provision of dental care for medically compromised children in the UK by General Dental Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the views of General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) regarding their provision of dental treatment for medically compromised children. A questionnaire to assess confidence, experience and willingness to treat eight specific groups of medically compromised children was sent to 524 GDPs. Information is based on 271 completed questionnaires. The median number of children treated by GDPs in each of the eight groups over the previous 5 years was 0-2. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they would value further training in the provision of dental care for medically compromised children. Confidence was highest in providing dental treatment for children with three conditions: congenital heart disease (37% very confident), diabetes (39% very confident) and epilepsy (41% very confident). These were also the conditions that the GDPs reported as presenting most frequently in the dental surgery. GDPs reported least confidence in providing dental care for children with haemophilia (12% very confident) and organ transplants (14% very confident). Only 30% of GDPs wanted to be routinely involved with the provision of dental care for medically compromised children. The results indicate that medically compromised children may have problems accessing dental care and expertise. A system of integrated medical and specialised dental care is suggested.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".