An interprofessional model of care for oral health during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aim was to appraise the relevance and appropriateness of an interprofessional prenatal oral care model among pregnant women and healthcare providers in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with 39 purposefully selected participants (13 pregnant women and 26 healthcare professionals) were used qualitatively to appraise relevance of an existing model. The existing model emphasizes communication and collaboration among multiple health providers for the delivery of integrated prenatal oral care. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach and N-Vivo® software. During the first round of interviews, most participants considered the existing model as simple and well-defined but not fully relevant to the BC context. The participants suggested revisions to Steven's model to incorporate facilitators of integrated care, including interprofessional education, oral health funding, and advocacy for oral healthcare. Participants suggested a different graphical portrayal for the revised model; an implementation guide was also suggested. A revised model based on participants' feedback, was shared with 14 of the initial participants during secondary interviews. Further evaluation of the appropriateness of the revised model is warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".