Provider and community perspectives of dental therapists in Alaska’s Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta: A qualitative programme evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dental therapists deliver preventive and basic restorative care and have been practicing since 2006 in Alaska's Yukon-Kuskokwim (YK) Delta. In this qualitative programme evaluation, we documented health providers' and community members' experiences with dental therapy. The goal of the evaluation was to develop a conceptual model of dental care delivery in Alaska Native Communities centred on dental therapists. METHODS: We developed semi-structured interview scripts and used snowball sampling to recruit 16 health providers with experience providing care in the YK Delta and 125 community members from six YK Delta Communities in 2017 and 2018. The six communities were a stratified convenience sample based on community-level exposure to dental therapists (high, medium and no exposure). Interview data were digitally recorded, transcribed, verified for accuracy and coded inductively into conceptual domains using content analytic methods. RESULTS: Providers believed individuals living in the YK Delta have benefited from clinic-based restorative care and community-based education provided by dental therapists. The restricted scope of dental therapy practice limits the complexity of care that may be offered to patients. However, community members expressed high satisfaction with the quality of care provided by dental therapists. Community members noted more widespread knowledge and evolving norms about oral health and believed dental therapists are helping to prevent disease and improve quality of life. Participants believed access to dental care for children has improved over the years, but felt that many adults in the YK Delta continue to have unmet needs. A potential barrier to sustained programme effectiveness is low retention of dental therapists in the region, driven primarily by reports that dental therapists feel overworked, stressed and geographically isolated. CONCLUSIONS: Dental therapists have contributed to the dental care delivery system in Alaska's YK Delta. Future opportunities remain within the system to address the needs of adults, develop strategies to retain dental therapists in the region and incorporate evidence-based, prevention-oriented strategies to improve oral health behaviours and reduce oral diseases.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".