Geospatial Analysis of Dental Access and Workforce Distribution in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Background and Objective:</strong> One of the major factors affecting access to quality oral healthcare in low- and middle-income countries is the under-supply of the dental workforce. The aim of this study was to use Geographical Information System (GIS) to analyse the distribution and accessibility of the dental workforce and facilities across the Kenyan counties. <strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study targeting dental professionals and their practices in Kenya in 2013. Using QGIS 3.16, these data were overlaid with data on population size and urbanization levels. For access measurement, buffers were drawn around each clinic at distances of 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 km, and the population within each determined. <strong>Findings:</strong> Nine hundred six dental professionals in 337 dental clinic locations were included in the study. Dentists, community oral health officers (equivalent to dental therapists) and dental technologists comprised 72%, 15% and 12%, respectively. Nairobi county with 100% urbanization and >4000 people/km<sup>2</sup> had 43% of the workforce and a dentist to population ratio of 1:9,018. Wajir with an urbanization level of 15% and 12 people/km<sup>2</sup> had no dental facility. Overall, 11%, 19%, 35% and 58% of the Kenyan population were within 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 km radius of a dental clinic respectively. <strong>Conclusion: </strong>Maldistribution of dental workforce in Kenya persists, particularly in less urbanized and sparsely populated areas. GIS map production give health planners a better visual picture of areas that are most in need of health care services based on population profiles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".