The scope of practice of geriatric dentistry in British Columbia (Canada): An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The oral health needs of frail older adults are increasing with an aging population in Canada. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of dentists in British Columbia regarding their view of geriatric dentistry as a distinct scope of practice and in relation to special needs dentistry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Qualitative data were gathered thorough semi guided interviews of a purposeful sample of dental clinicians, educators and members of organized dentistry with specialized knowledge of oral health for frail older adults. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a thematic approach. Thematic saturation was reached with the 10 participants in this study. Through the method of interpretative description, patient, dentist, and systemic factors that shaped scope of practice for geriatric dentistry were identified as well as the broader skill sets required for geriatric dentistry. CONCLUSION: The study found that participants perceived geriatric dentistry as unique scope of practice from general dentistry requiring special knowledge in the management of challenges associated with aging with frailty as well as the ability to work in long-term care. Similar to special needs dentistry, geriatric dentistry requires person-centered care and emphasized the need for interprofessional collaboration in alternative care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".