A qualitative research on the experience of oral hygiene care of perioperative oral cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To understand the real experience of oral hygiene care of perioperative oral cancer patients. Methods Qualitative descriptive research was adopted. Semi-structure in depth interviews were conducted among 17 postoperative oral cancer patients. NVivo 11 was used to manage and sort out the original data, data was analyzed with the content analysis of Colaizzi. Results Six themes regarding oral hygiene care was extracted, including the diversity of methods of oral hygiene and the care provider, patients have limited knowledge about oral hygiene care and the relative education is lacking, the change of function, structure and the degree of comfort of mouth impact the oral hygiene care, patients′ feedback on oral hygiene care is complicated, patients′ oral care related emotional experience is rich, oral hygiene care experience of elderly and non-elderly patients with oral cancer has few difference. Conclusions The oral hygiene care of perioperative oral cancer patients needs to be further standardized, the instruction of patients′ oral hygiene care needs to be enhanced, more attention should be paid to the popularization of disease knowledge, so as to optimize patients care and do a good job in disease prevention. Key words: Oral neoplasm; Perioperative period; Oral care; Qualitative study
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".