Developing Person-Centred Dental Care: The Perspectives of People Living in Poverty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dentistry has seen a slow trend toward person-centred care (PCC), with most approaches developed by scholars who have tried to progress away from disease-centred care. Unfortunately, the perspectives and experiences of underprivileged people have not been considered in the development of these approaches. Our objective was thus to understand underprivileged people's experiences and expectations about dental care and contribute to the development of person-centred dentistry. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study with a sample of 13 people living in poverty. We used a maximum variation sampling strategy and selected them among the users of a free dental clinic in Montreal, Canada. We conducted semi-structured interviews that we audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Our main finding is that participants wanted to feel human and respected by dentists. More specifically, they wanted to be more involved in the dental care process through quality time and empathetic conversations with the dentist. They also wished for an exchange of information free of technical terms and built on mutual trust. In conclusion, person-centred dental care models should emphasize empathy, trust, and quality care beyond technical skills. Clinicians should provide comprehensive information in dental encounters and treat their patients as whole persons.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it