MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801914110 · doi:10.7939/r3891250w

Examining Differences in Oral Health Status Based on Assessments Conducted by Long-Term Care Staff Versus a Dentist

2017· article· en· W2801914110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole F Hannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)MedicineOral healthDentistryDental carePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term care demand is increasing as Canada’s population ages and experiences a growing prevalence of dementia. Long-term care residents are highly dependent on health care providers for ongoing assessment and care due to complex cognitive and other medical conditions. One aspect of health requiring particular attention is the oral cavity. The oral health status of older adult long-term care residents is generally poor and access to dental professionals is limited. Residents require regular oral assessments by health care providers to identify unmet oral health needs which may be detrimental to residents’ oral health, systemic health and psychosocial well-being. The only assessment of oral health considered compulsory in Alberta’s long-term care facilities is a component of the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS 2.0). The present study describes the oral health conditions in a sample of older adult (65+) LTC residents taken from a retrospective chart review from 2009-2012. Each resident had received two independent oral assessments: one by a dentist and another by long-term care staff. Oral health data were extracted from RAI-MDS 2.0 records and were then compared with oral health assessments completed by a dentist on the same resident. Additionally, differences between oral health conditions recorded by a dentist and cognitive impairment using the RAI-MDS 2.0 Cognitive Performance Scale were explored. Oral health issues were frequently documented during the dentist’s oral assessment. Although the percentage of residents with oral health conditions identified by a dentist were generally comparable to other Canadian studies, some notable differences emerged from our study. These discrepancies may be related to varying definitions of oral health items, assessment methods used, and inclusion of residents with cognitive impairment. The findings highlight the challenges and complexities involved when assessing oral health of LTC residents who are frequently affected by cognitive impairment. In contrast to the dentist’s oral assessment, the RAI-MDS 2.0 oral assessments rarely identified unhealthy or problematic conditions. Comparisons between the RAI-MDS 2.0 oral health items and the oral health assessments recorded by a dentist on the same resident displayed low rates of agreement. These findings suggest that the RAI-MDS 2.0 oral health assessment process may not be meeting the oral health needs of older adults in LTC. Comparisons of residents who were cognitively intact to those with cognitive impairment revealed significant differences in the proportions of residents with certain oral health conditions. The differences between residents with and without cognitive impairment highlights the need for research specifically capturing the oral health status of cognitively impaired individuals. The cognitively impaired population who are frequently excluded from research samples appear to have unique oral health needs and challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207