Integration of oral health into primary care: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Integrated care has been introduced as a means of improving health outcomes and access to care, and reducing the cost of healthcare. Despite its importance, the integration of oral health into primary care is still an emerging healthcare pathway. This scoping review protocol has been developed and funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to provide an evidence-based synthesis on a primary oral healthcare approach and its effectiveness in improving oral health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 6-stage framework developed by Levac et al underpins this scoping review. We will identify relevant existing theories, programmes and original research through a comprehensive and systematic search of electronic databases such as OVID (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases), NCBI (PubMed), EBSCOhost (CINAHL), ProQuest, Databases in Public Health, Databases of the National Institutes of Health (health management and health technology) and relevant organisational websites and other sources of grey literature. All types of studies from 1978 to May 2016 in the French and English languages will be included. Using the Rainbow conceptual model of integrative primary care, a qualitative descriptive approach and thematic analysis will be used to synthesise the literature. Implementing novel healthcare models necessitates identifying barriers, sharing knowledge and delivering information. The integration of oral healthcare into primary care is an approach that promotes breaking the boundaries separating oral healthcare professionals and primary care. It creates opportunities for the dental workforce to become more involved in community-based practice and to assume shared responsibility with healthcare professionals to address the unmet oral health needs of those experiencing vulnerability and marginalisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping study has received approval from the Université de Montréal's Institutional Review Board (#14-097-CERES-D). The findings will be disseminated through publications and presentations in provincial, national and international research symposiums and professional meetings.
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 | 0.164 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.019 |
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".