Perceptions of Patients with Xerostomia about Quality of Life, General and Oral Health: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>INTRODUCTION: </strong>We aim to explore the perceptions about quality of life and its relationship with general and oral health of adults suffering from Xerostomia</p><p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A qualitative and exploratory study was conducted from an ethnographic perspective. 22 semi-structured in-depth interviews and one focus group were carried out. Patients were contacted through different institutions and by means of snowball sampling. Furthermore, socio-demographic information was collected and a content narrative analysis was conducted identifying significant text fragments and generating codes and categories.</p><p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>6 categories from participants’ discourses were identified: 1) Knowledge about general, oral health and Xerostomia; 2) Determinants of access to health services: access barriers are reflected by poor attention and medical opportunity in appointments, misguided diagnosis and treatments, and difficulties obtaining medications; 3) Definitions of quality of life, health and oral health; 4) Social support and relationships: social support is as perceived by families, institutions and social networks enabling them to meet their health goals and the consequences of these; 5) Practice to overcome dry mouth: Several alternative methods were used when medicines are not a satisfactory solution for each individual; 6) Future aspirations: in some cases, a significant number of the participants expressed fear when thinking about the future, and discourses directly relate with their families. In some cases they expressed not to think about the future and “live and enjoy”.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Xerostomia affects the quality of life not only from individual systemic conditions, but also through determinants from the social context and the health system.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".