Reviewing public policy for promoting population oral health in Victoria, Australia (2007–12)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Government policy and planning set the direction for community decisions related to resource allocation, infrastructure, services, programs, workforce and social environments. The aim of the present study was to examine the policy and planning context for oral health promotion in Victoria, Australia, over the period 2007–12. Methods Key Victorian policies and plans related to oral health promotion in place during the 2007–12 planning cycle were identified through online searching, and content analysis was performed. Inclusion of oral health (and oral health-related) promotion initiatives was assessed within the goals, objectives and strategies sections of each plan. Results Six of the 223 public health plans analysed (3%) included oral health ‘goals’ (including one plan representing nine agencies). Oral health was an ‘objective’ in 10 documents. Fifty-six plan objectives, and 70 plan strategies related to oral health or healthy eating for young children. Oral health was included in municipal plans (44%) more frequently than the other plans examined. Conclusion There is a policy opportunity to address oral health at a community level, and to implement population approaches aligned with the Ottawa Charter that address the social determinants of health. What is known about the topic? Poor oral health is a significant global health concern and places a major burden on individuals and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 50% of all children and 75%–95% of adults in Australia. The Ottawa Charter acknowledges the key role of policy in improving the health of a population; however, little is known about the policy emphasis placed on oral health by local government, primary care partnerships and community health agencies in Victoria, Australia. What does this paper add? This is a review of oral health content within local government (municipal) and community health plans in Victoria, Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? The findings identify several opportunities for public health and community health practitioners and policy makers to place greater emphasis on prevention and improvement of the oral health of Victorians through policy development.
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 | 0.069 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".