Coping strategies for oral health problems by people with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with schizophrenia are particularity susceptible to poor oral health. Symptoms of schizophrenia often affect oral health behaviors and lifestyle. The aim was to explore coping strategies used by people with schizophrenia in oral health in order to understand and to best involve them in the management of their own oral health in daily life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is systematic review reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements. We included cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative and qualitative studies that 1) examined coping strategies regarding oral health in persons with schizophrenia or 2) examined coping strategies were used in dental care. We included studies conducted with at least one PWS aged 18 years old more and without restriction on sex, socioeconomic status, or language. RESULTS: The 8 studies included suggest that coping strategies depends on complex translation processes that can be either personal (e.g., psychological symptomatology, neuropsychological functioning to adversely affect hope, self-esteem, self-stigma, self-determination, sense of coherence, and resilience) and/or environmental factors (e.g., peer support and efficacy of rehabilitations programs). We further identified that the main factor influencing coping strategies was dental stress situation. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that coping strategies play a crucial role in the recovery process for oral health of PWS. Translation processes in oral health should be more explored in the future to clarify the capacity of PWS to cope with essential self-care in oral health on daily life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".