Relational continuity of oral health care in Indigenous communities: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relational continuity of care is an essential function of primary health care. This study reports on the perspectives of Cree communities and their primary health care providers regarding the barriers and enablers of relational continuity of oral health care integrated at a primary health care organization. METHODS: A multiple case study design within a qualitative approach and developmental evaluation methodology were used to conduct this research study in Cree communities of Northern Québec. Maximum variation sampling and snowball techniques were used to recruit the participants. Data collection consisted of individual interviews and focus group discussions. Thematic analysis was conducted which included transcription, debriefing, codification, data display, and interpretation. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) were used to guide the reporting of study findings. RESULTS: A total of six focus group discussions and 36 individual interviews were conducted. Five major themes emerged from the thematic analyses for barriers (two) and enablers (three). Themes for barriers included impermanence and lack of effective communication, whereas themes for enablers included culturally competent professionals, working across professional boundaries, and proactive organizational engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, relational continuity can be empowered by effective strategies for overcoming barriers and encouraging enablers, such as recruitment of permanent professionals, organizing cultural competency training, development of a Cree language dental glossary, encouraging inter-professional collaboration, and promoting the organization's efforts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".