Evaluation of Dental Program for Older Adults Living in Long-Term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Compared to the general population, older adults living in long-term care facilities have poorer oral health. Also, they seldom have access to dental care services. Given that, a dental health program was initiated by Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore (MCODSM), to deliver dental care to the residents of St. Antony Home (SAH), a long-term care facility in Mangalore, India. This study aimed to evaluate the dental program by investigating the views and recommendations toward the program through its stakeholders. METHODOLOGY: The stakeholders were divided into three groups: Group 1, transport personnel; Group 2, coordinator and administrators of the program from both the sites; and Group 3, the residents of SAH who received dental care at the MCODSM. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire to measure satisfaction levels of the participants. Data analyses included calculating the frequencies required to describe the evaluation outcomes narrative. RESULTS: A total of 19 stakeholders participated in the study, of them 12 were SAH residents (Group 3). These Group 3 participants received various kinds of dental care. Almost all stakeholders were satisfied with the program and reported that the program was beneficial to the SAH residents. The stakeholders of the program were satisfied with transportation, the time allotted for the treatment, and the attitude of the dentists who delivered the program. CONCLUSION: The dental program was successful in delivering the most needed dental care to SAH residents. It provided an opportunity to provide treatment to SAH residents, and the stakeholders were highly satisfied with the program. That said, there are opportunities to improve the program, especially in relation to transporting the SAH residents to the program site, having a single window to deliver the dental treatment, and acquiring more supporting staff. Future evaluations are warranted using well-designed evaluation procedures and larger samples.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".