Functional and psychosocial impacts of oral disorders in Canadian adults: a national population survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, national health surveys do not usually include questions pertaining to self-perceived oral health. Those that do use ad hoc sets of questions rather than standardized and validated measures of the functional and psychosocial impacts of oral disorders. AIMS: To collect national data on the impacts of oral disorders from a representative sample of Canadian adults and to compare the results with similar national surveys conducted in the United Kingdom and Australia. METHODS: Data were collected from adults by means of a telephone interview survey based on random-digit dialing. Oral health was measured with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile (also known as the OHIP-14 questionnaire), which asks about the frequency of 14 functional and psychosocial impacts that people have experienced in the previous year as a result of problems with their teeth, mouth or dentures. RESULTS: Of 3,033 interviews conducted, data were sufficient for analysis for 3,019 respondents. Just under one-fifth of the 3,019 respondents (19.5%) reported 1 or more of the 14 impacts "fairly often" or "very often" in the previous year. The prevalence was higher among edentulous respondents (30.7%) than among dentate respondents(18.6%), as were the extent and severity scores. The prevalence of impacts was lowest in Atlantic Canada (16.1%) and highest in the Prairies (23.3%), although the difference was not statistically significant. Prevalence rates and extent and severity scores were highest among those who wore dentures, recipients of public dental care and irregular dental visitors. Considerable income disparities were also observed, with 34.9% of those from the lowest-income households reporting impacts. The prevalence of effects and the extent and severity scores in Canada were similar to those reported from the United Kingdom and Australia. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 Canadian adults experienced adverse impacts from oral disorders. Further work is needed to identify the material and psychological determinants of these impacts.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".