Examining the implications of dental treatment costs for low-income families.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Dental disease is concentrated among those with low socioeconomic status. Dental care is not publicly funded, and many Canadians must therefore make difficult financial choices when accessing dental care. Families who live in poverty have difficulty meeting even their most basic household needs, so dental treatment may not be affordable. The objective of this study was to understand how the cost of dental treatment affects the monthly budgets of families with low incomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chart review was conducted for a sample of 213 new patients examined at the Dalhousie University dental clinic over a 1-year period. Costs for proposed treatment plans were averaged. The patients" ability to pay for proposed treatment was examined in the context of various income scenarios. RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients were included in the final analysis. Dental treatment costs per patient averaged approximately $1600 for the year, with 42% of the planned treatment completed within the first year. The estimated monthly cost of completed treatment was $55. When the cost of a healthy diet was included in the monthly budget, it was determined that families in Nova Scotia with parents working for minimum wage and those receiving income assistance would experience a 100% shortfall for dental expenses. CONCLUSIONS: Low-income families in Nova Scotia were unable to afford both a nutritious diet and dental care. This is disturbing, given the links between a healthy diet and both overall health and dental health. An understanding of the significance of income shortfalls for those with low incomes, especially as they affect even basic nutritional needs, will help dental professionals to appreciate the seriousness of this issue and the difficulties that many Canadians face when trying to access basic 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".