"Dental tourism": issues surrounding cross-border travel for dental care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When I visit my dentist I travel 4 kilometres from my residence to her office. My experience is commonplace; many Canadians commute from their homes or workplaces to see a nearby dentist. Although our coffee might come from Colombia and our clothes from China, for most of us dental care is as local as the neighbourhood grocery store, library or community centre. However, for some people, obtaining affordable dental care involves travel to another country. Journalists call these travellers “dental tourists.” Americans visit dentists in such Mexican border towns as Ciudad Juarez, Los Algodones, Nogales and Tijuana.1–3 Australians fly to Thailand for inexpensive dental care. People from England, Ireland and Wales journey to clinics in Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Poland. In general, patients travel from higher-cost settings to regions where care is comparatively less expensive, and the price differential must be significant. Most “dental tourists” travel for treatment when the total cost of dental care, meals, accommodations, transportation and other expenses is less than the price of local care. The Internet facilitates cross-border dental care. Dental tourism companies advertise “allinclusive” travel packages that include dental procedures, hotel room reservations, side trips to tourist attractions and airline tickets. Dental clinics also use the web to attract international clients. People who consider travelling for dental care use the Internet to email sales representatives, submit digital images and negotiate prices. Given the size of the U.S. population and the proximity of the country to low-cost dental clinics in Mexico, far more Americans than Canadians presumably travel in search of affordable dental care. Nonetheless, Canadian snowbirds are among the customers seeking inexpensive care in Mexican clinics located adjacent to the borders of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.4 An Ottawa-based company, The InciDental Tourist, sells dental tourism packages to China.5 The company states that care costing $8,400 in Canada is available in Nanjing for $1,840.6 Several Canadian medical tourism companies also market dental tourism “deals.”7–9 It is not surprising that dental tourism companies use patient testimonials to tout cost savings, customer satisfaction and quality of care. In turn, some dentists argue that inexpensive cross-border dental care is sometimes substandard. 10,11 They report encountering patients who have experienced serious complications as a result of obtaining low-priced dental care. Dental tourism companies respond to these criticisms by asserting that local dentists are merely protecting their own economic interests when they impugn “Dental Tourism”: Issues Surrounding Cross-Border Travel for Dental Care
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".