The Community Dental Facilitator Project: Reducing Barriers to Dental Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This report describes an initiative developed and implemented by a low-income, urban, Canadian community to respond to their children's dental problems. METHODS: The first strategy pursued by the community was the development of the Community Dental Facilitator Project. This project facilitated children's access to existing government funding for dental treatment, and subsequently facilitated access to treatment at local dental offices. Children in need of treatment were identified by a school dental screening. The facilitation work was done by three lay workers hired from within the community who represented the community's predominant ethnic groups. RESULTS: Parents revealed that barriers to dental care in local dental offices were lack of information about funding programs, language, inflexible work situation, and mistrust of bureaucracy. By the project's end, with the assistance of the facilitators, a significantly increased number of children had been enrolled for government dental benefits (P<.001). In addition to the 123 children identified at the screening as needing treatment, another 30 children "self-referred" to the program. At the end of the project's original funding period, dental appointments had been made for 68 children: 60 (48.8%) of the "screened" group, 8 (26.7%) of the "self-referred" group. One-year telephone follow-up to parents of the screened children revealed that 42 of 59 (71.1%) had completed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to dental care for low-income children go beyond economics. A community facilitation model can improve low-income children's access to existing dental services and may reduce the barriers to care for some children requiring treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".