Patients’ perspectives on integrated oral healthcare in a northern Quebec Indigenous primary health care organisation: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-centred care is considered to be an important element in the evaluation of integrated healthcare and has been effective in addressing oral health disparities. This study explored the patients' perspectives of patient-centred integrated care in oral health services integrated into a primary healthcare organisation serving a northern Quebec Cree population. DESIGN: This study used a multiple case study design within a qualitative approach and developmental evaluation methodology. Two theoretical models, Picker's Principles of Patient-Centred Care and Valentijn's Rainbow Model of Integrated Care, guided data collection and data analysis. The thematic analysis included transcription, debriefing, codification, data display and interpretation. SETTING: This study was conducted in purposefully selected four Cree communities of Northern Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients in need of oral healthcare and who attended the local dental clinic were identified and recruited by maximum variation sampling and snowball techniques. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' perspectives of patient-centred integrated oral healthcare. RESULTS: Data analysis generated six major themes: enhanced accessibility, creating supportive environment, building trust through shared decision making, appreciation of public health programmes, raising oral health awareness and growing cultural humility among healthcare providers. Patients identified the integration of dental care into primary healthcare with respect to co-location, provision of free oral healthcare services, care coordination and continuity of care, referral services, developing supportive environment, shared decision making, oral health promotion and culturally competent care. CONCLUSION: These results confirmed that patient-centred care is an important element of integrated care. Patients valued the use of this concept in all domains and levels of integration. They recommended to further strengthen the clinical integration by involving parents in oral health promotion as well as optimising care coordination and empowering a supportive environment in organisational integration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".