Anxiety and anger of homeless people coping with dental care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To reveal and describe from open-ended interviews how homeless people in Vancouver interpret, appraise and cope with dental care. METHODS: Audio-recorded interviews with 25 homeless people (18 men and 7 women; age range: 25-64 years), purposefully selected for a range of experiences, were transcribed and analysed inductively. The process of interpretive description drawing from the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations and Lazarus's Theory of Emotions identified how participants appraised and coped with dental care. RESULTS: Four dominant themes emerged: barriers to care; service use; opinions on dental health; and improving dental services. Participants were anxious about the cost of dentistry and fearful of dentists. They got emergency dental care with difficulty, usually in hospital emergency departments although mostly they preferred self-treatment. They acknowledged the importance of dental health but felt stigmatized by their homelessness and visibly unhealthy mouths. They wanted accessible dental services with financial assistance from government, more widespread information about community dental clinics, and, notably among the Indigenous participants, less humiliating discrimination from dentists. CONCLUSIONS: Homeless people have difficulty coping with dental care. They believe that dentistry is frightening, humiliating and expensive, and governments are neither sympathetic to their disability nor willing to provide helpful information about community dental clinics or sufficient dental benefits for their needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".