Dental care pathway of Quebecers after a broken filling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to 1) describe the dental care pathway of adults after sustaining a broken filling, and particularly, the patient delay in seeking care as well as the continuity of care, and 2) identify factors associated with the decisions taken. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: In 1998-99, 5,469 Quebec women aged 30 to 44 years completed a self-administered questionnaire in which they indicated whether they had experienced a dental problem in the previous 12 months. From then on, the questions identified the decisions they made during the process of consulting a dentist. RESULTS: 32.4% of the respondents had experienced a dental problem within the last 12 months. Among them, 38.0% reported a broken filling. 65.1% of those who identified a broken filling decided immediately to consult a dentist and 34.9% chose to wait and see. Patient delay was over one month in 44.0% of the cases. When asked by the dentist to come back in order to complete the treatment. 90.6% agreed, 3.2% decided to consult another dentist, and 6.21% chose not to consult. Logistic regression analyses show that patient delay was associated with low income, low degree of inconvenience (symptoms), low degree of perceived seriousness, and absence of a family dentist. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals important social disparities: after sustaining a broken filling, which remains an important problem in industrialised societies, patient delay, interruption of the dental care episode and extraction are more frequent in low-income groups. It also reveals that a wait-and-see attitude is more frequent than an interruption of the dental care episode after the first visit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".