Integrated oral care for patients with spinal cord injuries: perceptions of non-dental professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the oral health attitudes, knowledge, and practices among non-dental professionals caring for patients with spinal cord injuries, as well as the barriers and facilitators to oral care across acute and rehabilitation hospital settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 35). A thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Four themes were constructed: understanding the impact of spinal cord injuries on oral health and wellbeing; limited support in the spinal cord injury unit to promote oral care; strategies that enable oral care promotion; and recommendations to expand scope in oral care and education. Although most clinicians considered oral health to be important there was a lack of guidelines to support standardised oral care practices. Barriers included lack of time, limited oral care resources, low priority and difficulty in accessing treatment. Staff were receptive to an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to oral care. CONCLUSION: This Australian first study provides insight into spinal cord injury clinicians' knowledge and practices of oral care. The findings will help guide future research in developing appropriate models of care to promote oral health among patients with spinal cord injuries.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".