The oral health-related quality of life for individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder – a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oral health status of an individual can dramatically influence quality of life. Most individuals in Canada report having good oral health, however, this is not true for individuals with developmental disabilities such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). The purpose of this study is to compare the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of individuals with FASD and the general population in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Additionally, it aims to suggest ways to improve the oral health status and OHRQoL of these individuals. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) survey was used to assess the impact that oral health related problems can have on an individual's quality life. This study used a cross-sectional cohort study design with a survey methodology. The sample population compromised of 154 individuals with FASD along with a separate control group of 154 otherwise healthy adults. RESULTS: The results of the study showed that most of the individuals in the FASD group experienced pain in the past month. In both groups, cost was most frequently cited as a barrier to accessing care. The majority of individuals in the control group experienced a low impact across all OHIP-14 domains except for physical disabilities. However, in the FASD group, most individuals experienced higher impact scores in some of the categories including functional limitation, psychological discomfort, psychological disability and handicap. CONCLUSION: The findings clearly demonstrate that there is a discernible effect on an individual's quality of life if they have poor oral health. In conclusion, further research is required to determine the most effective methods to improve the OHRQoL of individuals with disabilities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".