Perceptions of access to oral care at a community dental hygiene clinic for women involved with the criminal justice system.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Women involved with the criminal justice system are often marginalized or vulnerable and may face oral health inequities. Through a community-engaged program at a Canadian university, dental hygiene students provided preventive care at an organization supporting this population. This study explored the impact of these oral care services from client and organization staff perspectives. Methods: One focus group with 6 clients, 2-person interviews with 4 clients, individual interviews with 3 clients, and one focus group with 4 organization staff members were conducted. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. The concept of access, proposed by Penchansky and Thomas (1981) and Saurman (2015), was used as the conceptual framework to organize the themes. Results: Nine themes were identified from the focus group and interview discussions: limited options, convenience, realistic expectations, respect and attention, no judgement, physical environment, communication, clients' unique needs, and appropriate messaging. Discussion: The clinic's close proximity and services, for which women did not need to pay out-of-pocket, facilitated access to preventive care. The person-centred and trauma-informed care further facilitated access. However, access to comprehensive care through referrals was limited by cost and likely issues of stigmatization from other dental care providers. Clinic aesthetics, advertising, and communication between the students and women receiving care also hindered access. Conclusion: Preventive oral care services provided at this clinic for marginalized and vulnerable women who have been involved with the criminal justice system were valued by clients and staff. Findings will help inform future community-based dental hygiene clinics for this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".