Person-Centered Care: Perspectives of free dental clinic users in Montréal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a relatively slow incorporation of person-centered care into dental care. Despite the efforts to sustain this approach in dental health care delivery, the perspectives of patients have yet to be considered, especially those using free dental clinics. Our objectives were: (1) to describe the perspectives of adults unable to access private dental clinics when using free dental clinics, (2) to document their suggestions for improvements to dental care. This qualitative descriptive study included 13 adults using a free dental clinic. To select participants, we adopted a maximum variation sampling strategy regarding age, sex, marital status, education level and employment status. We used in-depth, semi-structured interviews to collect data and thematic content analysis to analyze the verbatim transcripts. Participants were generally satisfied with the dental care they received in private and free dental clinics. However, they did not appreciate the long wait times at free clinics, and were bothered by the cost at private clinics. They emphasized a desire for quality time with the dentist allowing for more informed and shared decisions about their care, regardless of the clinic they visited. Participants want to feel cared for through a trustworthy relationship with the clinician, and suggested incorporating a walk-in concept into free clinics to address access to care. Adults using free dental clinics have various experiences with private and public dentistry, but they all need clinicians who adopt a comprehensive approach when providing information. This could improve patients’experiences through a more person-centered approach to dental care.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".