Productive efficiency and its determinants in the Community Dental Service in the north-west of England.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of service provision in the Community Dental Services and its determinants in the North-West of England. SETTING AND SAMPLE: 40 Community Dental Services sites operating across the North-West of England. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: A data envelopment analysis was undertaken of inputs (number of surgeries, hours worked by dental officers, therapists, hygienists and others) and outputs (treatments delivered, number of courses of treatment and patients seen) of the Community Dental Services to produce relative efficiency ratings by health authority. These were further analyzed in order to identify which inputs (determined within the Community Dental Services) or external factors outside the control of the Community Dental Services are associated with efficiency. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative efficiency rankings in Community Dental Services production of dental healthcare. RESULTS: Using the quantity of treatments delivered as the measure of output, on average the Community Dental Services in England is operating at a relative efficiency of 85% (95% confidence interval 77%- 99%) compared to the best performing services. Average efficiency is lower when courses of treatment and unique patients seen are used as output measures, 82% and 68% respectively. Neither the input mix nor the patient case mix explained variations in the efficiency across Community Dental Services. CONCLUSIONS: Although large variations in performance exist across Community Dental Services, the data available was not able to explain these variations. A useful next step would be to undertake detailed case studies of several best and under-performing services to explore the factors that influence relative performance levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".