Readiness for the aging population in private dental practices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As more adults reach advanced age with natural teeth, there is an increasing need for dental and dental hygiene practices to provide care for older adults and individuals living with dementia. Little is known about how well these populations are accommodated in private practice. Methods: Following approval from the Research Ethics Board at Mount Allison University, a survey was sent to the 517 practising dental hygienists in New Brunswick, Canada. They were asked to rate on 5-point scales their geriatric oral care knowledge, their willingness to receive more education on the topic, and how frequently they adjusted their care provision to meet the needs of older (age 70+) clients and those living with dementia. Results: A total of 121 dental hygienists responded (23.4% response rate). Overall, respondents were willing to learn more about geriatric care, but lacked knowledge about the oral health effects of certain medications frequently used by older adults, and about techniques for accessing the oral cavity of clients with dementia. Many accommodations recommended by geriatric specialists were not consistently carried out. Discussion: Given that older adults and adults with dementia make up an increasingly large part of the population in need of oral care, geriatric and dementia oral care needs should be emphasized in dental and dental hygiene practices and continuing education for dental hygienists. Conclusion: More research is required on the impact of integrating accommodations for older clients and clients with dementia into clinical practice, as well as how oral care is experienced by these populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".