Utilization of dental services by children in low-income families in Alberta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the utilization of dental services for children among low-income families receiving assistance from 2 provincial health benefit programs in Alberta. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was used in telephone interviews with 820 randomly selected clients of the Alberta Child Health Benefit (ACHB) and the Alberta Adult Health Benefit (AAHB) programs. Data related to utilization of dental services were analyzed. RESULTS: Among respondents to the questionnaires, 377 (93.1%) of 405 ACHB clients and 356 (85.8%) of 415 AAHB clients agreed that the programs helped them or their children to obtain dental services that they would not otherwise be able to receive. However, only 222 (54.8%) of the 405 ACHB respondents and 136 (57.4%) of 237 respondents with children covered by the AAHB program reported that their youngest child had received at least 1 dental service in the 12 months before the survey. Children in the 2 youngest age cohorts (i.e., those 4 years of age or younger) were less likely to have received each of several specific dental services, including a dental examination or checkup, and children 5 to 14 years of age were more likely to have received these dental services. The most used dental service for all age groups was a dental examination or checkup, and the least used was extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the great need, low-income families underutilized the dental benefits for children offered by Alberta Employment and Immigration, which are designed to assist low-income Albertans. Parental awareness about public funding for dental services that is available did not seem to provide enough motivation to seek dental care for young children.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".