Nutrition Care Practices of Dietitians and Oral Health Professionals for Oral Health Conditions: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral health conditions, such as dental caries, pose a substantial burden worldwide. Although there are many risk factors for poor oral health, diet is often implicated as a cause of these issues. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and map studies that have captured information on the "real-world" nutrition care practices of oral health professionals (OHPs) and dietitians to optimize oral health, and specifically the dentition and periodontium. METHODS: A search of peer-reviewed articles was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase. Articles that addressed the review objective and met the following criteria were included: English language, published since 2000, and study conducted in a high-income country. RESULTS: Overall, 70 articles were included. Most articles reported on cross-sectional survey studies and provided self-reported data on OHP practices; few articles reported on dietitians. Most articles reported only general/unspecific information on assessment and intervention practices, such as dietary analysis, nutrition counselling, and diet advice, and lacked specific information about the care provided, such as the dietary assessment tools used, type of information provided, and time spent on these activities. Barriers to the provision of nutrition care by OHPs were common and included time and lack of remuneration. Few studies reported on collaboration between dietitians and OHPs. CONCLUSIONS: Several studies have captured self-reported information on nutrition care practices of OHPs related to oral health; however, there is limited information available on the details of the care provided. Few studies have examined the practices of dietitians.
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 | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".