Patient satisfaction with access to a student-run free-service dental clinic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Student Health Initiative for the Needs of Edmonton (SHINE) dental clinic is a student-volunteer-operated clinic offering free oral care to low-income individuals. However, little is known about how SHINE impacts access to care. Drawing on Penchansky and Thomas' theory of access, this study assessed patient satisfaction to measure access. For further context, patient-reported oral health concerns and alternative oral care options if SHINE were not available were recorded. Methods: The University of Alberta's Research Ethics Board (Pro 00101981) approved the study. Surveys adapted from Penchansky and Thomas were distributed over 12 weeks to all presenting patients. Survey data were triangulated with observations. Data were represented using descriptive statistics, and variables were compared using Chi-squared tests of independence. Results: A response rate of 77% (140/170) was achieved. The survey revealed that patients were generally satisfied with access to SHINE. However, observations revealed physical accessibility barriers. Dissatisfaction was correlated with attending SHINE without receiving treatment. Patients primarily presented to SHINE for pain (55%, 76/139). If SHINE were not available, 38% (46/121) of patients reported they would seek care from an alternative oral health professional, 32% (39/121) through an emergency department or physician, and 27% (33/121) would not attain oral health care at all. Conclusion: SHINE could be seen as addressing the need for access to oral health care services. The remaining barriers to care include long waiting times and clinic capacity to deliver care. A faster triage process may reduce waiting times. However, SHINE cannot provide more oral health care due to clinic capacity. Lastly, access to clinics such as SHINE may reduce visits to emergency departments for oral health care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".