MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301600599 · doi:10.1186/s12912-022-01051-5

Interventions supporting community nurses in the provision of Oral healthcare to people living at home: a scoping review

2022· review· en· W4301600599 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patrick Stark, Christine Brown Wilson, Georgios Tsakos, Paul Brocklehurst, Caroline Lappin, Barry Quinn, Gary Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastBurdett Trust for NursingPublic Health AgencyHealth Research Board
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineNursingNursing researchHealth carePublic healthNursing Interventions ClassificationInclusion (mineral)Nursing managementIntervention (counseling)Community healthFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oral health is a critical issue for public health and poor oral health is associated with significant chronic health conditions and lower quality of life. There has been little focus on providing oral health care to people who receive care in their own homes, despite the high risk of poor oral health in older people. Nurses practicing in the community are well placed to deliver this care, but little is known about how to build this capability through education or training interventions. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was employed to find and review studies of oral health interventions involving populations of people receiving care in their own home or those nurses who deliver this care. The research question asked what previous research tells us about oral health interventions delivered by nurses in the community. Data was extracted for four areas: setting and type of intervention, patient outcomes, changes to nursing practice and implementation and process evaluations of interventions. RESULTS: Two thousand eighty papers were found from the searches, and only nine were ultimately deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Included studies spanned community nursing for older people (n = 3) and health visiting or community nursing for children and infants (n = 6). Patient outcomes were generally positive, but this is based on a low level of evidence. Changes to practice including increased oral health care administered by nurses were found, but this required professional support to be sustainable. CONCLUSIONS: This review has found that there is a clear gap in the research around interventions designed to be used by community nurses to improve oral health care for people receiving care in their own homes. The results also suggest that any future intervention must make use of a participatory, co-design approach and consider the complex setting of nursing practice in the community and the barriers to delivering this care, such as time pressure and lack of prior experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NursingSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207