Defining quality of preventive oral health services in a northern First Nations community: a concept mapping study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In partnership with the Norway House Cree Nation (NHCN) in Manitoba, Canada, this study developed a framework based on how Indigenous parents/caregivers of young children and community-based oral health decision-makers perceive 'quality of preventive oral health services'. METHODS: Concept mapping was used to develop the 'quality of preventive oral health services' framework. This involved brainstorming/idea generation, sorting and rating, visual representation, and interpretation sessions with parents/caregivers (CG) and decision-makers (DM) in Norway House, Manitoba. Using the Concept System's GlobalMax software, a conceptual framework was created that was modified from input from CG and DM groups, which can be visualized through the concept map. RESULTS: The final concept map revealed seven domains of quality preventive oral health services: dental staff character and skills, working with community, responsibilities in preventive education, inclusive preventive oral health strategies, accessibility to appointments, logistics of providing services, and dental environment. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the existing gap in oral health services for Indigenous populations. Based on conversations and the concept mapping process, the developed framework can inform the steps to be taken to improve preventive oral health services for Indigenous peoples. The framework has been used to develop a quantitative scale to inform sustainable and impactful change in the quality of preventive oral health services that are meaningful to Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".