MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980851916 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25940

Children’s Oral Health and Barriers to Seeking Care: Perspectives of Caregivers Seeking Paediatric Hospital Dental Treatment

2019· article· en· W2980851916 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shauna Hachey, Joanne Clovis, Kimberley Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOral healthMedicineFamily medicineDental careDental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the demographics of children (and their caregivers) requiring hospital-based tertiary dental care, oral health services use and perceptions of and barriers to oral healthcare in Nova Scotia. METHOD: A questionnaire was administered to caregivers (N = 62) on behalf of their child (N = 62). RESULTS: Nearly half (45.8%, N = 27) of the caregivers experienced difficulty seeking oral healthcare for both themselves and their children. Less than a quarter (23.2%, N = 13) of the caregivers sought care for their child by the recommended age of one (mean age of first visit = 2.69 years). Alternate delivery in a school, community or primary healthcare setting was preferred by 53.3% (n = 32) of the caregivers for children's oral healthcare. Low-income families (53.8%, n = 28), rural areas (47.4%, n = 27) and Indigenous children (9.7%, n = 6) were over-represented in the study's sample. CONCLUSION: Socio-economically disadvantaged populations are more vulnerable to oral diseases. Oral health of priority populations in Nova Scotia appears to be inadequately addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207