Two-eyed seeing of the integration of oral health in primary health care in Indigenous populations: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indigenous people experience significant poor oral health outcomes and poorer access to oral health care in comparison to the general population. The integration of oral health care with primary health care has been highlighted to be effective in addressing these oral health disparities. Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. Two-eyed seeing is an approach for both Western and Indigenous knowledge to come together to aid understanding and solve problems. Thus, the two-eyed seeing theoretical framework advocates viewing the world with one eye focused on Indigenous knowledge and the other eye on Western knowledge. This scoping review was conducted to systematically map the available integrated primary oral health care programs and their outcomes in these communities using the two-eyed seeing concept. METHODS: This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework and its methodological advancement by Levac et al. A literature search with defined eligibility criteria was performed via several electronic databases, non-indexed Indigenous journals, Indigenous health organizational websites, and grey literature. The charted data was classified, analyzed, and reported using numeral summary and qualitative content analysis. The two-eyed seeing concept guided the interpretation and synthesis of the evidence on approaches and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 29 publications describing 30 programs conducted in Australia and North America from 1972 to 2019 were included in the final analysis. The following four program categories emerged from the analysis: oral health promotion and prevention programs (n = 13), comprehensive dental services (n = 13), fly in, fly out dental services (n = 3), and teledentistry (n = 1). Biomedical approaches for integrated primary oral health care were leadership and governance, administration and funding, capacity building, infrastructure and technology, team work, and evidence-based practice. Indigenous approaches included the vision for holistic health, culturally appropriate services, community engagement, shared responsibility, and cultural safety. The program outcomes were identified for biological, mental, and emotional dimensions of oral health; however, measurement of the spiritual dimension was missing. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a multiple integrated primary oral health care approach with a particular focus on Indigenous culture seems to be efficient and relevant in improving Indigenous oral health.
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 | 0.032 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".