Predictors of self-rated oral health in Canadian Indigenous adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to: (1) compare oral health indicators between Indigenous adults and the general population and (2) examine the predictors of poor self-rated oral health in the Indigenous population. METHODS: Data from the 2017-2018 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey was used and included 943 Indigenous and 20,011 non-Indigenous adults. Independent variables included demographic information, lifestyle behaviours, dental concerns and care utilization, and transportation access. The dependent variable was self-rated oral health. A logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of poor self-rated oral health. RESULTS: More than half of the Indigenous sample were aged between 35 and 64 years (57.3%); 57.8% were female. Compared to the general population, the Indigenous group were significantly more likely to have no partner, have less post-secondary education, and have an income of less than $40,000. Almost a fifth of the Indigenous sample self-rated their oral health as poor (18.5%) compared to 11.5% in the general population. Indigenous participants reported significantly poorer general health, had poorer oral care practices, and lifestyle behaviours than the general population (all p < .001). Indigenous adults having poor self-rated oral health was predicted by poorer general health, being a smoker, male, bleeding gums, persistent pain, feeling uncomfortable eating food, avoiding foods, and not seeking regular dental care. CONCLUSIONS: There are many predictors of poor self-rated oral health, many of which are preventable. Providing culturally adapted oral health care may improve the likelihood of Indigeneous adults visiting the dentist for preventative care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".