A review on oral health care in four different health care systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : A universal approach to oral health is said to improve oral health outcomes, but research has shown mixed results. This study aimed at critically reviewing the literature available on the oral health care systems of four countries in terms of structure, scope, and delivery, along with their impact on oral health outcomes. Methods : A comparative literature review of the oral health care systems in Brazil, New Zealand, Canada, and Sweden was performed between August 2017 and January 2018 using PubMed/MEDLINE and the key words ‘universal’ OR ‘publicly funded’ AND ‘dental OR oral’ AND ‘care OR access’ AND ‘outcome’. This is a critical essay based on evidence available in the literature that was enriched by accounts from 12 key informants from these four countries. Results : All four countries provide some form of universal health care, but the administration, funding, and delivery of oral health care varied. Approximately 6% of oral health care expenditure in Canada is publicly funded. Brazil provides full publicly-funded oral health care at the point of use via salaried dental professionals, while Sweden offers a high-cost protection plan favouring those with greater needs, and New Zealand delivers publicly-funded oral health care to children up to their eighteenth birthday. With service utilization varying, 61% percent of Canadian children, 67% of Swedish children, 50% of Brazilian children, and 45% of New Zealand children are caries-free at age 12, while 6.4%, 0.8%, 6.5%, and 9.6% of adults between the ages of 20 and 79 years are edentulous, respectively. Conclusions : All countries have some form of publicly-funded oral health care, but vary in the way that the services are delivered, from salary-based providers to private-practice models. Service utilization and oral health outcomes differ in each country.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".