Independent older adults perspectives on oral health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore oral health experiences from the perspective of older adults' living in community dwellings. The two objectives of this study were to identify facilitators and barriers to oral health care, and to determine how utilization of oral health services compares to utilization of other healthcare services. METHODOLOGY: An interpretive descriptive methodology was employed with a purposive sample of 12 adults, aged 70 years or older. The inclusion criterion was English-speaking seniors residing in community dwellings. Community dwellings were defined as any housing outside of long-term care or other supportive living facilities. Semi-structured interviews were 30-80 min, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Three researchers participated in the comparative analysis process to develop codes, generate categories, interpret patterns and construct themes. RESULTS: Three central themes surfacing from the data were as follows: life course influences on oral health, transparency in delivery of oral health services and interrelationships between oral health and overall health. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults in this study emphasized the value of establishing collaborative and trusting relationships between oral health practitioners and older adults. Oral health practitioners should be clear and transparent when communicating information about oral health costs and be cognizant of different circumstances from childhood to older adulthood that inhibit or promote routine utilization of oral health services. Including oral health services as part of interdisciplinary care teams could help promote understandings of the reciprocal relationship between oral health and general health and improve oral health status for older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".