Moving towards social dentistry: How do dentists perceive the <scp>Montreal‐Toulouse</scp> model?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the perspectives of dentists towards the Montreal-Toulouse model, an innovative approach that encompasses person-centredness and social dentistry. This model invites dentists to take three types of actions (understanding, decision-making, intervening) on three overlapping levels (individual, community, societal). This study aimed to understand (a) How dentists perceived the Montreal-Toulouse model as a framework for the practice of dentistry and (b) What parts of this model they were ready to adopt in their own practice. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted based on semi-structured interviews with a sample of dentists in the Province of Quebec, Canada. A combination of maximum variation and snowball sampling strategies was employed and 14 information-rich participants were recruited. The interviews were conducted and audio-recorded through Zoom and lasted approximately 1 h and a half. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed through a combination of inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: The participants explained they valued person-centred care and tried to put the individual level of the Montreal-Toulouse model into practice. However, they expressed little interest in the social dentistry aspects of the model. They acknowledged not knowing how to organize and conduct upstream interventions and were not comfortable with social and political activism. According to them, advocating for better health-related policies, while a noble act, 'was not their job'. They also highlighted the structural challenges that dentists face in fostering biopsychosocial approaches such as the Montreal-Toulouse model. CONCLUSIONS: To promote the Montreal-Toulouse model and empower dentists to address social determinants of health, an educational and organizational 'paradigm shift' towards social accountability might be necessary. Such a shift requires curricular modifications and reconsidering traditional teaching approaches in dental schools. Moreover, dentistry's professional organization could facilitate dentists' upstream actions through proper resource allocation and openness to collaboration with them.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".