Perspectives of socially disadvantaged women on oral healthcare during pregnancy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral health is considered important during pregnancy, however many pregnant women, especially socially disadvantaged women such as immigrants, working poor and homeless have difficulty accessing oral healthcare. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of a sample of socially disadvantaged women on oral healthcare provision during pregnancy. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative study via focus group discussions with seventeen pregnant women or new mothers receiving care at a local maternity clinic that serves a culturally diverse population facing social challenges. PARTICIPANTS: Women who met at least one of the following criteria: low socio-economic status, new immigrant or refugee, homeless or at risk of homelessness, history of incarceration or substance abuse or at risk of abuse. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using the NVivo 11© software programme for coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: All participants reported unmet oral healthcare needs. The analysis revealed three main themes: knowledge of the importance and value of oral health during pregnancy, experiences with oral healthcare and provision of oral health services to socially disadvantaged pregnant women. Participants favoured inclusion of preventive oral healthcare provided by either dental or prenatal healthcare professionals in routine prenatal care. DISCUSSION: Socially disadvantaged pregnant women did not access the oral healthcare they needed due to cost, dental fear and anxiety; some faced stigma and discrimination. They were disposed to receiving community-based, primary preventive dental services as part of prenatal care from either dental or prenatal allied healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".